[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Atiachment 495-.4.6 Assessment of Clam Resources and Sanitary Quality of the Shellfish Growing Waters in Witch Creek, Seavey Creek and Little Harbor A Final Report to The New Hampshire Office of State Planning, New Hampshire Coastal Program Submitted by Dr. Stephen H. Jones1,2 and Dr. Richard Langanl.3 IJackson Estuarine Laboratory, University of New Hampshire 2Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire 3Department of Zoology, University of New Hampshire July, 1996 This Report was funded in part by a grant from the Office of State Planning, New Hampshire Coastal Program, as authorized by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Grant Award Number -NA570ZO320 N OFWA OF 11ATE PUMNS H COAVAL PROGRAM Sanitary Survey for Little Harbor, Seavey Creek and Witch Creek New Castle and Rye, New Hampshire July, 1996 prepared by 'Dr. Stephen H. Jones and,Dr. Richard Langan Jackson Estuarine Laboratory University of New Hampshire Durham, NH 03824 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary I Il. Description of Growing Area I A. Location map showing growing area, I B. Description of area I C. History of growing area 2 III. Pollution Source Survey 2 A. Summary of sources and locations 2 1. Map or chart showing the location of major sources of pollution 2 2. Table of pollution source 2 B. Identification and evaluation of pollution sources 3 1 .Shoreline survey 4 2. Domestic waste 4 A. Septic systems 4 B. Wastewater treatment plants 4 3. Marinas 5 4. Stormwater 5 5. Agricultural waste 6 6. Wildlife areas 6 7. Industrial waste 7 IV. Hydrographic and Meteorological Characteristics 8 A. Tides: Type and amplitude 8 B. Rainfall: Amounts, seasonality and frequency of significant rainfalls 9 C. Winds 10 D. River Discharges: Volumes and seasonality 11 E. Actual or potential effects of transport on pollution to the harvest area 11 V. Water Quality Studies 12 A. Map of sampling stations 12 B. Sampling plan justification 12 C. Sample data analysis 12 VI. Interpretation of Data in Determining Area Classification 13 A. Meteorological and hydrographic effects on bacterial loading 13 B. Variability in the data and causes 13 VII. Conclusions 14 A. Map showing classification 14 B. Legal description 14 C. Management plan 14 D. Recommendations for improvement of sanitary survey 14 VIII. References 15 Tables Figures Appendix A: Assessment of clam (Mya arenaria) population in the study area Al-2 Appendix B Properties and septic systems in areas surrounding survey area B 1-6 Appendix C: Bacterial indicator concentrations in water at sites around Little Harbor C I 1. Executive Summary Many improvements have been made in wastewater treatment facilities on the Piscataqua River and throughout the Great. Bay Estuary, and best management practices for stormwater control and other-potential pollution sources have become more prevalent in recent years. Ile results of the present sanitary survey suggest that some areas could be classified as approved, pending collection and similar results from adequate numbers of samples at all sites. This approved area could include all of Little Harbor and portions of the mouth of Witch Creek and Seavey Creek. A thorough analysis of conditions and water quality in the whole growing area indicates that classification of the area would probably require some meteorological and seasonal- use conditions, the latter because of the prevalence of boats during months (May, September, October) when clamflats could otherwise be open. Relatively heavy rainfall events (>l"/48h) appear to cause significant decreases in water quality. The proximity of the site to areas of coastal New Hampshire where no shellfishing is presently allowed, in addition to the encouraging water quality results, makes this a desirable site for reclassification. 11. Description of Growing Area A. Location map showing growing area Figure I shows the boundaries of the growing area in question which includes all of Little Harbor out to Jaffrey and Frost Points at the harbor mouth, and extends south through the mudflats at the mouths of Witch and Seavey Creeks. Berry Brook, upstream Witch Creek and the flow from Sagamore Creek/Back Channel area west of the Rt. IB bridge are considered potential point sources of pollution for the purpose of this study. B. Description of area The growing area lies near the northernmost portion of coastal New Hampshire. Specifically, the area is bordered on the north by New Castle Island, to the east by Fort Stark State Historical Site and the Atlantic Ocean, to the south by Odiorne Point State Park and the Witch/Seavey Creek area, and to the west by the Wentworth-by-the-Sea golf course and the Back Channel area. New Castle to the north and Rye to the south and west are the two towns bordering the area. Water movement within the area is governed primarily by tidal currents while minor influences are provided by the few tributaries that carry freshwater into the area. The only tributaries in the area are Berry Brook, Witch and Seavey Creeks and the water flowing into the harbor from the Back Channel area. Little Harbor and the rest of the survey area constitute a small, shallow embayment with an average depth of -2 m, with deeper channels extending to 5 m. The deepest waters are confined to one channel that extends from the Rt. I B/Back Channel out to the mouth of the harbor. 'Me mean tidal range of the growing area is 2.4 m, ranging from 2.1 to 3.4 m. The area is subject to strong tidal currents and vertical mixing, limiting the vertical stratification of waters throughout most of the year. During periods of excessive freshwater runoff, partial stratification of the water column can occur. A large portion of the area is exposed at low tide with most of the intertidal zone consisting of mudflats and some macrophyte and rocky habitats. Extensive salt marshes exist around the upper intertidal zones at the mouths of Seavey Creek. Several bivalve species can be found within the growing area including blue mussels (Mytilus edulis), soft shell clams (Mya arenaria) and a few American oysters (Crassostrea virginica). Soft shell clam habitat is prevalent, with a harvestable area of approximately 35 acres, but the abundance is generally low (see Appendix A). Blue mussels are dominant in many of thi low intertidal and subtidal (channel) areas in high abundance, probably constituting the dominant standing shellfish stock in the area. The shorelines of the survey area are a mix of residential property, protected lands and woodlands. Most of the land surrounding the watershed for the growing area is forested. I Agricultural use of shoreline land within the growing area is essentially nonexistent. Human population along the growing area is moderate, with concentrated areas along the southwestern shore around Wentworth and Pioneer Rds. in Rye, the Wentworth condominiums on the northern shoreline, and a moderately dense area on the northeastern shoreline in New Castle. Shoreline ownership around the growing area is typically private, with a golf course and some lands protected or in government ownership. Two state-owned areas border the growing area. One is Odiome State Park, a large area which dominates the southeastern shoreline. On Jaffrey Point on the north shore of the mouth of the harbor is Fort Stark State Historical Site. C. History of growing area classification The survey area has been classified as prohibited since the late 1980's when the Wentworth-by-the-Sea marina was expanded. The last comprehensive sanitary survey conducted in the area took place many years ago. Ile water quality in Little Harbor and the Back Channel was seriously degraded by the primary effluent from the Portsmouth wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) prior to its being upgraded (NHFG, 1991). Since that time, the WWTP has been rebuilt and poses only a rare threat to water quality. One remaining combined sewer overflow (CSO) in South N1ill Pond is still of concern. Significant new construction has occurred as part of the Wentworth-by-the-Sea marina/condominium expansion, although all septic wastes are discharged into a sewer system and pumped to the Portsmouth WWTP. Numerous non-sewered residences in Rye and New Castle have replaced failed septic systems and overboard discharges. The potential for clam harvesting in the area is substantial based on the acreage of potential clam flats. According to the NHFG (1991), there are 400 acres of clam flats in the Little Harbor and Back Bay area, compared to 162 acres in Hampton/Seabrook Harbor and 500 acres in Great Bay. The flats were not thought to be as productive as Hampton/Seabrook Harbor, which had an estimated standing crop of -8x that of the Little Harbor area. An update of the clam resources in Little Harbor and the Seavey/Witch Creek area has been conducted as part of this project, and the results are presented in Appendix A. In addition to significant potential habitat area, recent water quality results determined by NHDPHS suggest that the area may be one of the most likely areas for consideration to be re-opened (see Section V). 111. Pollution Source Survey A. Summary of Sources and Locations 1. Map or chart showing the location of mgjtor sources of l2ollution Figure 2 shows the locations of potential pollution sources to the growing area. A discussion concerning each individual source follows in Section 2. 2. Table of pollution sources Table 1 lists six actual or potential pollution sources found either directly within the growing area or that could influence the quality of water which flow into the growing area (Figure 2). Included in Table 1 are "Relevant Sample Sites." These are specific water quality sampling sites that have been designated to show the effects, if any, that each pollution source listed in Table I has on a specific section of the growing area. Table 2 lists all of the routine sampling sites established for the survey area. Figure 3 shows an routine sampling sites which have been established in order to monitor water quality throughout the growing area. Sites TI, T5, T6, T8, J9, TIO, and T13 are sites established by DPHS to support the routine classification of the area. Sites T7 and T14 are routine sites reactivated this year, and WC1 and LH2 are new sites added this year. Sites Tl, T6, T13, T14 and LH2 are located in the potential growing area and sites T5,17, T8, T9, T10 and WC1 are in areas that may influence the water quality of the growing area. Data for all of these sites are presented in Table 3 for DPHS analyses and Table 4 for JEL analyses, and discussed in Sections IV, V and VI. 2 The water quality in all tributaries have been evaluated. These include Berry Brook, Witch and Seavey Creeks, and the Back Channel, all ofwhich are being treated as individual point sources of pollution. Figure 4 shows the small tributary sampling sites,WC 2, 5 and 6, PC 1, 2, 4 and 5, SC 1 and 2, and WRL I; the analytical results are presented in Table 5. All of the tributary samples showed little contamination, with a decrease going downstream. None of these tributaries appear to have much impact on water quality in Little Harbor, based on the results for the routine sample sites T6 and T14 (Tables 3 and 4). Pollution sources listed in Table I and below which are located on the major river tributaries are considered to be either point or non-point sources within these tributaries. A brief explanation of each source and its potential to contaminate the growing area is given below. PSI, PS2 -The Wentworth- by-the-Sea marina/condominium complex has a potential for contamination via two mechanisms: PS 1 -direct discharges from boats docked at the marina, and PS2-from the stormwater drainage system around the condominiums. There are 170 slips for boats at the marina, 4 of which are reserved for transient boats and the rest are individually reserved. From mid- to late-May through early- to mid-October, the slips are essentially fully utilized. The pump-out facility is a nine year old Keco vacuum system with a 1.5" pipe through which waste is pumped to the town's sewer system. The facility has had heavy use, and may need to be replaced in the near future to insure that such a well-functioning facility in such a key area is capable of handling the high demand. The marina is essentially unused during the rest of the year. Thus, the potential for pollution from the marina is a highly seasonal factor. Stormwater from the condominium area flows through two vegetated swales designed to detain and decontaminate stormwater. These systems appear to receive lightly contaminated water (see Section III.B.3). The marina and stormwater sources are potential direct sources. PS3- There are -100 boat moorings located within and to the north of the main channel near the rrfiddle of Little Harbor. Approximately 60 of the 100 moorings are used by members of the marina, and they all routinely use the marina pump-out facility. Some of the other boats also use the facility. Like the marina, these moorings are used from May to October, and virtually not at all the rest of the year. Thus, the potential for pollution from the mooring field is highly seasonal. This source is a potential direct source. PS4- The Wentworth-by-the-Sea golf course is an eighteen hole course that lies directly on the southwestern shoreline of the harbor. The buildings are distant from the shoreline, but there is fertilizer and pesticides applied to the fairways and greens (see Section III.B.4). These apparently have little impact on the water quality of the adjacent portions of the harbor, even though they are considered potential direct sources. PS5- "Me Portsmouth wastewater treatment plant is located on Pierces Island along the southern portion of the Piscataqua River. Ile effluent discharge pipe is located in the main river channel near to the main entrance to the Back Cliannel. Any malfunction in plant operation that would lead to discharge of untreated sewage could impact the survey area via water flow through the Back Channel. This source is considered a potential, indirect pollution source. PS6- There is one combined sewer overflow in Portsmouth that is located in South Mill Pond. Untreated sewage may be discharged through this source, especially during high volume rainstorms. The concern is that contaminated water flowing out of South Null Pond could enter Little Harbor via flow through the Back Channel. This source is considered a potential, indirect pollution source. B. Identification and evaluation of pollution sources 3 1. Shoreline Survey The shoreline survey was conducted by boat at both low and high tide in August, 1995 and May, 1996, and by foot in populated areas during April and May, 1996. Properties were surveyed at high tide by boat to gain close access to shore for better observation. Walking along the shoreline at low tide, any pipes located below the high water mark could be more readily observed. Homes bordering the growing area were evaluated by looking for malfunctioning septic systems, gray water pipes, outhouses and other potential pollution sources. All drainage streams with flowing water were sampled and water samples analyzed. No apparent pollution sources were observed at high tide in the boaL The areas covered by the low tide shoreline reconnaissance included Pioneer Rd. west of the Rt. IA bridge, Brackett Rd. near the Berry Brook bridge, the Foyes Rd./Frontier St. area, and the Wentworth Rd. area to the northwest of the golf course. No obvious failed septic systems, outhouses or flowing drain pipes. were seen. Numerous ditches that drained into the tidal waters and originated in back lots and small streams that flowed close to shoreline houses were sampled during the springtime when water tables were elevated. These were mostly located around Pioneer Rd. as illustrated in Figure 4. The results of the water analyses (Table 5) showed little contamination was associated with these ditches and streams, suggesting that septic systems for shoreline homes were not contaminating the drainage streams that empty into the tidal waters. 2. Domestic wastes A. Septic systems Towns abutting the growing area with residences on septic systems are New Castle and Rye. The most densely populated areas are New Castle Ave. (Rt. I B) and Pioneer Rd. (Rt. 1 A) in Rye. These homes are all essentially year-round residences. The northern shore of Little Harbor in New Castle is a moderately populated area. Research was carried out at each town hall to obtain septic system information for each residence within 500 feet from shore (see Appendix B). Locations of homes are given by map and lot number for each town according to the town tax maps (also Appendix B). All homes in areas surrounding the growing area have individual septic systems with the exception of the Wentworth condominiums and marina which are linked to Portsmouth's municipal sewer system. A complex pattern of other homes in New Castle are also linked into the Portsmouth sewer system. Soil suitability for septic tanks along the growing area shores varies, with poorly and very poorly drained soils dominating in and around the salt marsh area at the mouth of Seavey Creek and a freshwater marsh behind the northeast shoreline of Little Harbor. In addition, some of the soils on land adjacent to Witch Creek and other scattered area are also unsuitable for development/septic systems. B. Wastewater treatment plants There are no municipal wastewater treatment plants which discharge directly into the growing area, although one discharges into the nearby Piscataqua River (PS5; Figure 2). Thus, the Portsmouth WWT? may indirectly impact the growing area due to its nearby location. Portsmouth rebuilt their entire primary plant, completed in 1992, under a DES/EPA Consent Decree. It is an advanced primary treatment system with sand filters, primary settling clarifiers, and chlorination that serves essentially the entire city of Portsmouth and parts of New Castle. The effluent discharge pipe is located approximately 300 feet off shore from Pierces Island near the middle of the river channel. Sand filters and dechlorination were added to ensure adequate disinfection and minimize discharge of chlorinated compounds. The Consent Decree was terminated after the facility demonstrated twelve continuous months of meeting the bacterial limit of 70 total coliform/100 ml. No industrial waste is processed in the plant. Design flow is for an average flow of 4.7 mgd and a hydraulic peak flow of 22 mgd. The average flow during the past year was 5.3 mgd. The system is alarmed for both power failure and high water flow. There are 17 pump stations, all 4 alarmed. There are an additional 3 pump stations in New Castle. One CSO still receives untreated wastewater, and discharges to South Mill Pond. Recent efforts have been made to upgrade sewer lines throughout the city, including South. and North Mill Ponds. Pump houses have also been upgraded. 3. Marinas During the period from mid-May through mid-October, the Little Harbor portion of the study area experiences heavy recreational boating activity consisting of power and sailing vessels of all sizes. In addition, there is a 170 slip marina and a mooring field with 100 moorings. By mid-October, the vessel traffic is negligible and the vessel that occupy the marina slips and moorings during the boating season are either hauled out of the water or winterized and idle at the marina slips. Since illegal discharge of human wastes from vessels poses a potential human health threat for shellfishing waters, a prohibited shellfishing area must be established if the potential for illegal discharge exists. The Wentworth Marina has a sewage pump-out facility that services all the vessels at the marina and -60 vessels that occupy the moorings. Their facility is easily accessible at the fuel docks, and discharges directly to a sewage pipe that connects with Portsmouth WAFTP. Sean McKenna, the marina manager, reports that the facility is heavily used. In determining a worst case scenario of events for establishing a prohibited zone, it is assumed that two people would be discharging wastes per boat per day, each individual producing 2 x 109 fecal coliforms (FC). If it is assumed that all vessels at the marina discharged wastes on a daily basis this would produce 170 x 2 x 2 x 109 or 680 x 109 FC into the waters surrounding the marina. The total volume of water at the marina area at low tide is 8.8 x 108 liters, or 88 x 108 100 ml units. If complete mixing is assumed, the resulting concentration would be 77 FC per 100 mil. The water within the marina slips is quite still, and mixes with channel waters after slowly moving toward the channel on the ebb tide. All vessels discharging in one day is an unlikely scenario, just as complete mixing of wastes with the surrounding water is unrealistic. If instead we assume the 10% or 17 vessels discharge 17 x 2 x 2 x 109 FC daily, and that the discharge mixes only with the upper 0.5 m of the water column, the resulting concentration of the surface waters within the marina area would be 116 FC per 100 ml. The plume would eventually n-dx with channel waters and would be transported toward the Wentworth clamflat on a falling t 'ide, and toward the triangle flat on a rising tide. If the plume mixes with an equal volume of water as it joins the channel flow, then water with a concentration in excess of the 14 FC/100 ml could reach the two flats, therefore placing them in the prohibited safety zone. 'Me mooring field also may pose a potential risk from discharge. If it is assumed that 10% of the moored vessels discharge each day, then 10 vessels x 2 persons x 2 x 109 FC = 40 x 109 FC would be discharged i rto an area with a volume of 6.3 x 108 100 liter units, the resulting plume concentration would be 66 FC1 100 ml in the mooring area. If the plume mixes with an equal volume of flood tide waters water with a concentration 14 FC/100 ml would be transported in the direction of the triangle flat, and potentially the Odiorne, Seavey and Berry Brook flats. The plume mixing with ebb tide waters would not likely impact any of the flats in the growing area. An additional source of contamination which would be very difficult to quantify is waste discharge from the transient boat traffic in the area. As previously mentioned, vessel traffic is very heavy in the area from mid-May through mid-October. Numbers, sizes, and length of time vessels spend in the area, along with estimates of waste volumes discharged, would have to be included in the equation in order to estimate the volume of sewage discharge. 4. Stormwate There are two potentially significant stormwater sources that could impact the water quality of Little Harbor. One is the drainage from the new Wentworth-by-the-Sea condominium/marina 5 complex on the northern shoreline of the survey area, and the other is the CSO in Portsmouth (PS2 and PS6; Figure 2). Portsmouth has eliminated nine of ten CSOs, but one remains in South Mill Pond. The concern for the Little Harbor area is that contaminants flushed into South M111 Pond from the CSO could flow through the Back Channel area into Little Harbor (NHDES, 1995). Elimination of the remaining CSO would cost an estimated $10 million, as estimated by the city's CSO Facility Plan. Because of the high costs associated with elimination of the CSO, the City of Portsmouth has filed for a Use Attainability (UAA) Study to reclassify the receiving waters, i.e., South Mill Pond. If they are successful in proving that the costs are essentially prohibitive, then they would not be required to attain the limit of 70 total coliforms per 100 n-d in South Mill Pond. In such a case, careful attention to the potential for storm-related contamination to affect any opened shellfish beds in Little Harbor would be necessary. It would also be difficult to open the extensive mudflats in the Back Bay area. The other potential source of stormwater is the drainage system of the condominium-marina complex at Wentworth- by-the-Sea.' There are two vegetated swales in that area that are designed for control of stormwater from impervious surfaces. The major swale, located next to the marina parking lot, has been studied as part of a joint NHDES/UNH-JEL study over the past year. Water samples were collected during the initial 0.5" of rainfall of three storm events in 1996 at the influent pipe and the effluent drain to determine if the swale is effectively treating stormwater. Fecal coliform levels were relatively low in all samples, ranging from 2 to 56/100 ml (unpublished data). It appears that the drainage swales are not receiving stormwater with any significant contamination, and the stormwater from the Wentworth complex probably has little effect on harbor water quality. There are some other potential indirect sources of contamination to Little Harbor located in Portsmouth. There are some storm and parking lot drains in the city that drain into the tidal waters, although none that would have much impact on Little Harbor. There are also three snow dump sites on the southern end of town, two on Pierces Island and one next to South Mill Pond. 5. Agricultural waste and golf cl2urse fertilizer applications Agricultural use of land within the growing area has greatly declined during the past fifty years. At present, there are no working farms along the shoreline of the growing area. However, the Wentworth-by-the-Sea golf course (PS4; Figure 2) uses both fertilizers and pesticides. A slow-release fertilizer (24-4-12) is applied to fairways, tees and greens in May, June and September at annual rates ranging from 130-218 lbs/acre of nitrogen and 22-36 lbs/care phosphorus. Roughs are not fertilized. Grass clippings are returned directly (mulched) onto fairways. Tee and green clippings are collected and spread on the roughs. Water samples collected at sites along the shoreline of the golf course were analyzed for dissolved inorganic nutrients. Ile results (Table 6) show low concentrations of nitrogen and phosphorus, suggesting that the fertilizers applied at the course have little impact on the water quality of the harbor. Insecticides are not used routinely on a large scale. An integrated pest management system is employed and pesticide application is limited to spot application to control grub infestation. Preventative treatment for snow mold fungus is applied only to tees and greens. Heavy metal (mercury) based compounds are not used. All materials are applied conservatively with particular caution paid to adjacent surface waters and wetland buffer zones. Equipment used for applications is field-rinsed, and the diluted rinse water is sprayed onto the fairways to prevent a large volume of this water being washed into maintenance facility storm drains (Rye-Wentworth Impact. Assessment RepoM 1990). 6. Wildlife areas There are two areas where wildlife may be prevalent within the growing area. One is Odiorne State Park, and the other is. the extensive salt marshes of Seavey Creek and Berry Brook, part of which is owned and managed by Odiorne State Park. Habitat areas in Little Harbor have 6 been mapped (Figure 5). Mammals living within the growing area include whitetail deer, beaver, fox, mink, otter, muskrat, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits, moles, voles, rats, mice, bats, shrews, weasels, skunks and raccoons (Seacoast Science Center, 1992). Wildlife populations are not suspected to be large enough to impact water quality, especially considering that most of the shoreline is developed. In addition, the Little Harbor area is a seasonal stopover for many waterfowl and wading birds. Species commonly seen or heard during one or more seasons include common loon, grebes, cormorants,bittem, brant, Canada geese, mallard, eider, oldsquaw, scoters, common goldeneye, bufflehead, mergansers, hawks, kestrel, plovers, killdeer, yellowlegs, willet, sandpipers, godwits, turnstone, dunlin, snipe, gulls, terns, dovekie, owls, whip-poor-will, swift, kingfisher, woodpeckers, flicker,flycatchers, phoebe, kingbird,.swallows, jays, crows, chickadee, nuthatches, wrens, kinglets, wheatear thrushes, robin, catbird, mockingbird, cedar waxwing, starling, vireos, warblers, parula, warblers, redstar, yellowthroat, grosbeak, towhee, sparrows blackbird, grackle, orioles, finches, crossbill, goldfinch, and a large variety of less common birds. Quantitative assessments of birds, waterfowl and wildlife populations are not available so it is not known what effect they may have on water quality in the growing area. 7. Industrial wastp, There are no industrial activities on the shores of the survey area. Small scale, light manufacturing is practiced in Portsmouth and along the Piscataqua River, well outside of the growing area. However, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, located in Kittery directly across the river from the mouth of the Back Channel, has been the site of significant historical storage and use of toxic contaminants. An enviro 'nmental assessment of the shipyard and surrounding estuarine habitats has shown some elevated levels of some toxic compounds in depositional areas and some biota (USEPA/NCCOSC, 1994). Little evidence of actual toxic effects on biota was apparent. The Coakley Landfill is located in North Hampton 6 miles up the freshwater portion of Berry Brook. It received municipal and industrial wastes from the Portsmouth and Pease Air Force Base area between 1972-1985. In 1983, the NHDES found groundwater and surface water contamination with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) at numerous sites in the area (see Hughes and Brown, 1995). The site was added to the USEPA National Priority List in 1983, ranked number 680. The site has undergone remediation, yet VOCs are still being detected in some locations near the landfill (1993 EPA data). This became a concern of the Town of Rye, and they undertook a small investigation of water quality along the whole length of Berry Brook. They sampled twice during the spring of 1995, and had samples from 9 sites along the stream, from the Coakley Landfill to the estuary, analyzed for a wide range of contaminants (Hughes and Brown, 1995). These included 10 metals, 60 VOCs, 20 pesticides and 7 PCBs. None of the toxic organic compounds were detected in any sample. The metals were all present at low concentrations or undetectable. They found dissolved oxygen to be low near the landfill, but satisfactory at other sites. Suspended solids, dissolved inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus, and fecal indicator bacteria concentrations were all low. The Little Harbor and the Great Bay/Piscataqua River Estuary areas have been subject to significant historical industrial contamination, and the prevalence of urban areas along the shorelines poses potential continued nonpoint source pollution by toxic compounds. The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment has conducted a musselwatch monitoring program, called Gulfwatch, at sites throughout the Gulf of Maine for the last 5 years (GOMCME, 1992; 1994; in press). Short- and long-term exposure of mussels to toxic inorganic and organic contaminants have been determined at sites that include Little Harbor and some nearby sites like Shapleigh Island in the Back Channel, Odiorne Point, and Clark Cove on Seavey Island (Figure 4). Contaminant concentrations in tissue samples from mussels collected at these sites are summarized in Table 7, along with FDA "edible portion" limits. Also included are tissue concentrations for mussels collected from the same sites as part of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard 7 assessment (USEPA/NCCOSC, 1994) during approximately the same time frame for comparison. Sample results from Brave Boat Harbor and Hampton Harbor are also included as reference sites where there are few or no known contamination sources. None of the tissue concentrations for mussels from Little Harbor during 1991 and 1992 were above the FDA guideline levels. Lead and mercury concentrations were somewhat elevated and closest to FDA guideline levels. This is consistent with known historical contamination in the area. The metal concentrations are similar to levels found at Shapleigh Island and Clark Cove, and somewhat higher than concentrations at the two reference sites at Brave Boat Harbor and Hampton Harbor. For organic compounds, Little Harbor tissue concentrations were lower than those at Shapleigh I. and Clark Cove, and higher than those at Odiorne Pt., Hampton Harbor and Brave Boat Harbor. Overall, none of the sites have higher levels of contaminants that would indicate close proximity to a source of contamination. The levels at Little Harbor were somewhat higher than the 'reference' sites. However, comparison of levels at those 'reference' sites to other sites in the Gulf of Maine covered by Gulfwatch and by the National Status and Trends Musselwatch Project, as well as other sites throughout the US (Gotthohn and Turgeon, 1992) indicates that these sites are not true reference sites because other sites have much lower levels of contaminants. Gottholm and Turgeon (1992) found mussels from the Great Bay Estuary to have Hg and Pb levels well above the 50th percentile level for all sites in the NS&T project. There were a number of sites from the Gulf of Maine that also grouped higher than the 50th percentile level, essentially all of which were located in New Hampshire and southward, i.e., nearest to the large urban population center of Boston. This suggests that the whole area is exposed to somewhat elevated levels of contaminants, with no contaminants present in Little Harbor at levels above critical limits. IV. Hydrographic and Meteorological Characteristics A. Tides: Type and circulation The study area experiences diurnal tides. Mean tidal height is 2.4 m and ranges from 2.09 m to 3.36 m depending on celestial configuration. There is one entrance to the Harbor located between Frost Point to the south and Jaffrey Point to the north. The channel mouth is 230 m wide, being constricted by jetties at both the northern and southern sides. The harbor entrance faces southeast due to the positioning of the jetties. The primary source of freshwater discharge into the study area is from Berrys Brook, while lesser amounts of freshwater enter the area from Witch Creek and Seavey Creek. However, the latter two primarily drain tidal wetlands and have relatively small watersheds. Additional freshwater can enter the study area via Sagamore Creek and the Back Bay Area of the Piscataqua River. Sagamore Creek also primarily drains tidal wetlands while the waters of the Back Bay are composed of mixed estuarine discharge from the Piscataqua/Great Bay Estuary. Average water volume in the study area was calculated from bathymetric charts to be 8.7 x 105 m3 at low tide and 19.93 x 105 m3 at high tide. Partial stratification may occur in the study area during time of heavy rainfall and runoff. The stratification is generally short lived, since watershed areas that drain into Little Harbor are relatively small. Vertical profiles of temperature and salinity were measured at six stations during ebb and flood tides in May of 1996. Rainfall and runoff during the period preceding the measurements was greater than average. A spatial salinity gradient was found throughout all stages of the tide on sarnpling days with the greatest differential of nearly 10 ppt measured at low slack tide between the station at the Pioneer Road Bridge to the Harbor Mouth. With the exception of the Pioneer Road Bridge station and Sheafes Point, temporal salinity changes were small throughout the tidal cycle for all stations. Vertical profiles (Table 8) indicate that the channels are vertically well mixed. The greatest differential in salinity (4 ppt in 4 meters) occurred at the Harbor mouth station at the early stages of the flood tide when the denser oceanic water was flowing in at depth and the less saline waters were still flowing out on the surface. The smallest vertical differential occurred at the Rte 1 B Bridge channel and the Pioneer Road Bridge stations. 8 Surface tidal velocity and direction was measured at six stations in the study area on both flood and ebb tides. Stations were chosen to represent either the most important points of inflow and outflow as well as the location of potential pollution sources. The location of velocity and direction measurement stations appear in Figure 6 and data is presented in Table 9. Though tidal velocity will approach zero at the time of slack ebb and flood, the values presented in Table 9 represent the minimum velocities measured during the study. Greatest current velocities were measured at the channel under the Rte 1B bridge. Ebb velocities were slightly greater than flood and ranged from 7 to 120 cm/s with an average of 80 cm/s on the ebb and 75 cm/s on flooding tide. Flow in the study area appears to be dominated by this channel in addition to the net inward and outward flow of water through the Harbor entrance. Tidal currents at the remaining stations ranged from 2 to 55 cm/s. The average velocities (in cm/s) were similar at the Harbor Mouth (27 Flood, 30 ebb), the center of the mooring field (20 flood, 23 ebb), Sheafes Point (19 flood, 25 ebb), and the Pioneer Road Bridge (20 flood, 28 ebb) the Wentworth Marine fuel dock (25 flood, 30 ebb). The direction of flow in the channels generally followed the configuration of the channels. There is a lag time of approximately 45 minutes between slack low water from the harbor mouth to the bridge at Pioneer Road. Though not established as a measurement station, ebb current flow was measured at the center of the boat slip area at the Wentworth Marina. The pattern of flow is generally a slow (< 8 cm/s) outward movement of water in a direction perpendicular to the shoreline until the water mass reaches the outside areas of the floating docks. As the water reaches the main ebb flow and mixes with the channel waters, it the velocity increases rapidly and flows in a northeasterly direction toward the channel mouth. B. Rainfall: Amounts, seasonality and frequency of significant rainfalls . Listed below are monthly and yearly total inches of rainfall from January, 1993 to June, 1996. Rain gauge measurements from Durham, NH, were obtained from Dr. Barry Keim. and Robert Adams, the present and former NH State Climatologists. The frequency of rainfall events 05748 h are noted in parentheses. 1993 1994 1995 1996 January 1.62(l) 4.88(5) 4.45(4) 2.74(2) February 2.77(3) 1.60(l) 2.76(3) 1.59(1) March 4.63(3) 5.46(4) 1.87(l) 2.49(4) April 4.80(7) 2.76(2) 1.85(l) 6-.64(6) May 0.73(0) 4.02(4) 2.74(3) 3.64(3) June 2.44(l.) 1.73(l) 1.92(l) 1.86(l) July 1.49(l) 2.20(l) 3.79(3) August 2.21(3) 4.05(3) 2.72(2) September 4.19(5) 7.26(3) 2.79(3) October 3.08(3) 0.19(0) 6.53(4) November 3.81(4) 2.88(2) 7.41(4) December 5.58(3) 5.55(3) 2.46(2) Yearly total 37.35(34) 42.61(29) 41.29(31) 18.96(17) Yearly mean 33.11 (2.8) 3.55 (2.4) 3.44 (2.6) 3.16(2.8) Overall mean monthly rainfall: 3.34", with 2.6 rainfall events/month >0.5"/48 h Monthly precipitation ranged from 0. 19 inches in October, 1994, to 7.41 inches in November, 1995. There were a total of 111 1-2 day rainfall events with >0.5" rain in 48 h. These events were relatively evenly distributed during the months when shellfish could be harvested 9 (September-June). The sampling (29 samples) conducted for water quality monitoring by DPHS included I of these I 11 events and auxiliary sampling (11 samples) by JEL included 2 of the 35 such events that occurred during the study period. C. Winds Winds affecting the growing area tend to come from the north and northwest in the fall and winter months and from the southwest during spring and summer months. Northeasterly winds are typical of storms. Wind-driven waves can greatly affect current direction and speed, especially in the shallower areas of Little Harbor. Northeast winds tend to restrict ebb currents, holding water in the harbor, while southwest winds restrict flood currents from flowing into some of the southern portion of the growing area. Wind waves may influence grain-size distributions and sediment transport within the growing area. Current velocities at the sediment surface can become greater than tidal current velocities as a result of wind waves, especially in the shallower areas of the growing area where overall tidal current strength tends to be low. In general, the effects of tidal currents throughout the area may at times be significantly modified by wind-driven currents. Wind waves that. influence the bottom can also resuspend sediments, increasing turbidity levels and particle-associated contaminants above those produced by regular tidal currents alone. Surface sediment samples were collected from seven sites around the harbor in May, 1996 to determine the potential for sediment-associated bacteria to influence water quality by resuspension during wind events. The seven sites were along a transect extending from the southern upper harbor area in Seavey Creek out through the harbor to the flat along the north shoreline near the mouth (SS 1-6; Figure 4). The data are presented in Table 10 and illustrated in Figure 7. Concentrations of sediment-associated fecal coliforms and C. perfringens increased from the Seavey Creek (SS 1) flat out to the Triangle Flat (SS5 A&B) near the Rt. IB bridge, then decreased to the lowest levels tested in the Wentworth flat (SS6) near the harbor mouth. Levels of fecal coliforms ranged from 3/100 g dry sediment at the Wentworth Flat to 218/100 g at the Triangle Flat. Whereas these levels are relatively low, their spatial distribution suggests that recent fecal- bome bacteria accumulate in the sediments, especially around the Triangle Flat. The C. per firingens data illustrate long-term accumulation of fecal-bome bacteria. Ile concentrations ranged from 1990/100 g at the Wentworth Flat to 318,000/100 g at the Triangle Flat. The relationship between fecal coliform and C. per firingens levels was relatively close, with a correlation coefficient of r2--0.74 (P--0.06). The similar spatial pattern for concentrations of both indicators supports the observation that fecal-bome contaminants apparently accumulate in the sediments, especially around the Triangle FlaL Significant wind events coupled with the right currents could cause resuspension of the sediments at depositional areas like Triangle Flat and result in elevated contaminants in the water column of other parts of the survey area, with potential contamination of shellfish. The relationship between fecal coliforms in sediments and in soft shell clams was determined at five of the seven sites, using the May, 1996 sediment data and clam tissue data from August/September, 1995 (Table 10). Figure 8 shows the relative concentrations of fecal coliforms along a transect of sites from Seavey Creek to Wentworth Flat near the mouth of the harbor. The relative levels of fecal coliforms in shellfish are higher than in the sediment, reflected in the different y-axis units in Figure 8. The spatial trends for both media are similar, illustrated by the significant correlation coefficient for paired fecal coliform, data of r2--0.95 (P--0.01). This suggests that the Triangle Flat area is an area where fecal-borne bacteria accumulate and can be taken up by clams in the sediments. It is not known if the clam tissue levels are influenced by sediment-associated bacteria or if the bacteria are taken directly from elevated levels in the water column in the Triangle Flat area and accumulated. However, relatively low levels of FC have been detected in water from the channel under the bridge, suggesting that either uptake from the water column is not the mechanism, that there is no relationship in FC levels between clam tissue and water, or that water sampling was timed such that elevated levels of FC were not detected. Ile clams were sampled on 10 days that had followed dry weather, suggesting that elevated levels were not associated with stormwater during recent rainfall events. Blue mussels from near the RL IB bridge across the channel from the Triangle Flat also had relatively elevated levels (3000/100 g) of fecal coliforms (Table 10). However, they were sampled on 817/95 following 2.42" of rainfall during the previous 4 days. Even though the FC in water in the channel on that day were low (20/100 n-A), it is likely that the elevated levels in the epibenthic mussels may have been caused by contaminants in stormwater that had accumulated during the previous days. D. River Discharges: Volumes and seasonality There are no major tributaries that empty into Little Harbor. The largest tributary is Berry Brook in Rye, which flows into the Harbor on the southern boundary along with the smaller Seavey and Witch Creeks. Sagamore Creek is an extensive tidal creek that flows into the Back Channel area just to the west of the Rt. I B bridge. Most of the non-oceanic water that flows into Little Harbor enters through the channel below the Rt. I bridge, so Sagamore Creek could potentially influence water quality in the Harbor. All of these tributaries exhibit increased flow in the springtime with snowmelt and the elevated water table conditions associated with the frequent spring rains that occur. E. Actual or Potential Effects of Transport on Pollution to the Harvest Area With the recent upgrading of the Portsmouth WWTP, there is only one remaining significant potential point sources of fecal contamination in coastal NH (NHDES, 1994). This is the CSO in Portsmouth that discharges to South Mill Pond which outlets to the Piscataqua River. When significant rainfall events occur, the CSO can overflow and untreated sewage combined with stormwater can potentially contaminate the Back Channel area, which could influence water quality in Little Harbor. The conditions for this to happen have not been studied, so the potential for contamination of the area being classified in Little Harbor by contaminants from the CSO is hypothetical at present. Nonpoint source pollution is probably the major source of fecal contamination to the classified area. Nonpoint source pollution could enter the area as either urban runoff, stormwater, shoreline development, on-site septic systems, wildlife, boats, or golf course runoff. Stream flow from tributaries entering the area carries some of the annual precipitation to the tidal waters. The less saline water of the tributaries is well mixed within the water colunui and diluted upon entering the respective harbor and tidal tributaries. Figure 9 shows levels of FC in water along three transects from three areas with tributaries at their upper reaches. In Witch Creek and Berrys Brook/Seavey Creek, the relatively high FC levels upstream in the tidal portion appear to have little influence on water quality downstream. The extremely small freshwater stream at the head of Pioneer Cove has low levels of FC, and does not contaminate downstream waters. Elevated FC levels may result from contaminated stormwater associated with significant rainfall events. The impact of one storm event (2.68" rain in 24 h) on November 15, 1995 on FC concentrations in the classified area can be seen in Table 2. This storm followed two other storm >0.5" rainfall during the previous week. FC values were significantly elevated throughout the area, ranging from 1051100 ml at the mouth of the harbor to 3350/100 ml in Witch Creek. The next highest levels were found in the other tributaries, including Seavey Creek, Berry Brook and the Back Channel water entering under the bridge. Samples collected on 11/28/95 by DPHS after only 0.47" of rain had fallen in the following 13 day period had much lower levels, ranging from 4.5/100 ml at the harbor mouth to 23/100 ml in Witch Creek. These data suggest that rainfall events can cause elevated levels of contaminants to enter the classified area from the tributaries, and these contaminants are eventually attenuated throughout the area during ensuing dry weather. Transport of fecal-borne contaminants associated with freshwater in tributaries is dictated to a large extent by tidal mixing. Tidal currents act to disperse contaminants within the growing area by providing a well mixed water column. Since the growing area is subject to daily tidal influence, I contaminants are continuously being flushed from the system on outgoing tides. Contaminant travel throughout the growing area is mostly confined to the main channels with limited lateral flow and dispersion to shoreline areas during higher tides. With each incoming fide, a volume of water much greater than that present at low tide returns to Little Harbor from the ocean, producing significant dilution of contaminants that may be present. Water returning to the growing area on an incoming tide probably still contains some contamination carried out with ebb tides, which could be significant just after low tide. Water samples were collected from four sites during two tidal cycle studies. At the mouth of the harbor (TI), FC levels were relatively low, but highest at low tide (Figure 10), decreasing to very low levels at mid ebb and low tides. The intermediate levels at' mid-rising tide could reflect the return water composed of a mixture of contaminants discharged out of the harbor at low tide with contaminant-free ocean water. At Sheafes Point (T6), the channel under the RL I B bridge (T 13) and at the Rt. 1 A bridge (T 14), FC were again highest at low tide, with relatively lower levels at the other tidal stages (Figure 10). For all four sites, FC levels were always highest at low tide, confirn-iing the typical assumption that low tide is the adverse tidal condition for water quality. No significant contaminant transport from sources other than the tributaries was apparent from the data. V. Water Quality Studies A. Map of sampling stations Figure 3 shows the sites established by the NH Division of Public Health Services in order monitor the water quality of the growing area. Of the 11 sites, 5 are actually in the potential growing area and 6 are in areas that may affect water quality in the area. Several. sampling sites have been added to the area since the last survey was performed in 1991. They are: T14, which was added to give a better representation of water quality in the southern portion of the Little Harbor, I.M, which reflects the water quality conditions around Wentworth Marina; and WC I and T7, which give data for upstream portions of the two tributaries directly entering the area. Thus, 2 of the 5. sites (40%) within the growing area are new since last year. All of the additional sampling sites fill gaps in spatial coverage and provide data necessary for classifying all of the potential clam flats in the area. B. Sampling plan justification Systematic random sampling was used to obtain all water samples at low tide. Samples were therefore obtained under both normal and adverse conditions. Other water quality studies for other areas in coastal New Hampshire have shown differences in fecal coliform counts at high and low tide, with low tide being the adverse tidal condition. C. Sample data analysis The database for sampling sites in to the potential growing area (TI, T6, T13, T14, L112) and other sites in the survey area (T5, T7, T8, T9, T10, WCI) are presented in Table 3. Included in the table are the fecal coliform concentrations/100 nil for each station and sampling date, the geometric mean FC concentrations, the number of samples collected and the 90th percentile score. The site numbers may be cross referenced with Figure 3 for exact geographic location. No site has the minimum of 30 recent samples required for data analysis for classification (NSSP, 1993). The ' results of the data analysis indicate that sites T 1, T 13, T 14, and LH2 in the survey area and T5, T8 and 19 in the Back Channel area meet the requirements for approved classification using the Systematic Random Sampling Program (i.e. geometric mean < 14 FC/100 ml and the 90th percentile < 43 FC/100ml; NSSP, 1993). Site T6 at Sheafes Point in the survey area meets the criteria for geometric mean but just misses for 90th percentile. Site T7 is a freshwater site. Sites WC1 and T10 satisfy the criteria for restricted waters. If the'FC value at T6 for 11/29/94 (when 1.48" of rain fell in two days) is omitted based on a rainfall condition (see below), then the 12 calculated value for the 90th percentile would be 34.3, meeting the criteria. VI. Interpretation of Data in Determining Area Classification A. Meteorological and hydrographic effects on bacterial loading , The classification of the growing waters depends on the 90th percentile value calculated for water quality data. This value assumes that intermittent pollution events are unknown and random. One potentially identifiable and definable condition that may be a consistent cause of pollution is rainfall-associated runoff. Table 11 shows the number of DPHS or JEL samples collected from the proposed growing area (sites Tl, T6, T13, T14, and LH2) associated with rainfall events of >0.63" of rainfall during a 48 hour time period and samples where:50.63 inches fell. In addition, the number of samples that had fecal coliform concentrations >43/100 ml are also noted for each condition. Overall, there were 29 DPHS and 11 JEL sample events (40 total) for which data were collected for one or more sites within the classified area. Of these sample dates, 2 occurred at times where >0.63" rain fell in 48 h, both of which had samples with FC >43/100 ml. For these 2 events there were 8 water samples analyzed at the 5 sites, 7 of which had FC >43/100 ml. These events had 1.48" (11/29/94; DPHS) and 2.76" (11/15/95; JEL) of rain in 48 h. Overall, the 8 samples collected during the other 2 events had FC ranging from 33-890/100 ml, with 6 samples having >100 FC/100 ml. Both events occurred in November when approved clam flats are typically open. During another event where 0.63" rain fell in 48 h (8n195; JEL), the 1 critical site (T 13) sampled had 20 FC/I 00 ml. The data suggest that the more severe (> 1 "/48 h) storms can significantly impact water quality in the survey area during critical periods. The 43 FC/100 ml value was violated on 6 of the 38 dates following periods where 0-0.63' rain fell in 48 h. There were 135 samples collected on these dates, and only 8 of these samples had FC >43/100 nil. These data suggest that pollution events are not always associated with rainfall. However, the frequency of samples having FC >43/100 ml (88% samples) is much greater during rainy (>1.4"/48 h) periods than the frequency (6% samples) during drier (0-0.63" rain/48h) periods. For both rainy events, every water sample had FC >30/100 ml, suggesting that rainy events have widespread and consistent negative impacts on water quality. Follow-up studies should focus on a range of storin events to better define what types of rainfall events cause significant water quality impacts. In addition, studies should be conducted to define how long it takes the water quality to return to safe levels of FC following polluting events. In general, certain rainfall events appear to produce unfavorable effects on water quality that are consistent and definable in the classified area. Events that appear to significantly impact water quality are those that have >0.63 inches of rainfall within a 48 hour time period. Rainfall events with 0-0.63 " rain in 48 h do not show consistent or widespread effects in the survey area. B. Variability in the data and causes Fecal coliform. concentrations >43/100 ml are of concern because they exceed the tolerance factor calculated to account for the inherent variation in the MPN test. This means that FC >43/100 ml- should be rare (<5% of samples) in normally distributed values for water samples with a median concentration of 14 FC/100 ml. Thus, observations of higher FC values are indicative of intermittent environmental conditions that degrade water quality to an extent that results in a greater level of variance in data than what would be associated with the MPN test. As previously mentioned, there were 8 water samples collected on 6 sampling dates where FC were >43/100 ml and rainfall was <0.63"/48 h. The calculated 6% of all water samples being >43 FC/100 ml close to the theoretical 5% variability inherent in the MPN test. 'Me following discussion examines potentially definable causes for data variability. Only 2 of the 8 water samples >43 FC/I 00 ml, both collected on 8/3/95 at LH2 and TI 3 and analyzed by JEL, had FC >100/100 ml. Three of the six sampling dates with >43 FC,1100 ml occurred during summer months, and 4 of the 5 water samples collected on these dates were either 13 from LH2 or T13, both near the Wentworth Marina. It is suspected that some contamination could have come from the marina during the summer when boat use is high and clam flats would normally be closed. Two of the remaining 3 dates had FC of 79/100 ml at TI on 10/19/93 and 49/100 ml at LH2 on 1/30/96. The latter sample was collected on a day following a January thaw period when the snow depth decreased from 12" to 1" in the previous 6 days. This suggests that snowmelt could have had some influence on the water quality in the area, even though FC at T6, T13 and T14 were <12/100 nil on the same date. The value of 79 FC/100 nil at T1 on 10/19/93 followed a 6-day period without rainfall. However, at T6 FC=33/100 ml and at T13 FC=23/100 ml. On both dates, FC at T8 in Sagamore Creek'were the highest recorded by DPHS at 230 FC/100 nil, suggesting that some event from that area could have had some influence on water quality in Little Harbor. The remaining date was 12/7/93 when FC--46/100 nil at T6. This sampling occurred after 1.7" rainfall fell on the date 2 days prior to sampling. Other sites (TI and T13) sampled on 12/7/93 had FC <7/100 ml. 'Me overall low levels of FC detected during periods where <1.4" of rainfall had occurred in the previous 48 h suggests that random, undefined events that produce unsatisfactory FC levels (>43/100 ml) had only mild impacts on water quality in Little Harbor. Whereas no definable condition associated with FC >43/100 ml were apparent (other than rainfall events of >0.63"/48h), water quality conditions during snowmelt periods in January an early springtime should be i 'nvestigated. Relatively significant rainfall events with >1 inch of rainfall in 48 hours are a concern. Severe impacts on water quality have been documented in Great Bay following heavy rainfall events of >4" during 48 h periods. This occurred twice during the last six years as recorded by JEL scientists: once during Hurricane Bob in 1991 when 6.06" fell in 2 days, and once in September, 1994 after 4.22" of rain fell in 48 h. Both events caused considerable contamination of the approved shellfish area in the Great Bay Estuary. V11. Conclusions A. Map showing classification to be completed by DPHS B. Legal description to be completed by DPHS C. Management plan to be completed by DPHS D. Recommendations for improvement of sanitary survey In ensuing years, we recommend that sampling near the borders of the potential growing area be expanded to include more sites at the southern boundary where there are expansive mudflats and along transects, up into Witch Creek and Berry Brook to provide for more exact classification relative to upstream contamination. A more detailed survey could also be expanded into the extensive mudflat areas of Back Channel area out to the Piscataqua River. Obviously, the influence of stormwater and runoff from the CSO and other sources in Portsmouth would need to be thoroughly assessed. In addition, the eastern shoreline of the Back Channel, the Boatswain Hill area in New Castle, has relatively dense houses with septic systems built typically 20-30 years ago. It is important to maintain a schedule that allows for frequent sampling at all routine sites. At present, the number of samples that have been analyzed for the newer sites in the survey area aft inadequate, i.e., there are <30 samples. Even for all of the longer-terin routine sites there are <30 samples available for classification purposes. The tolerance factor level of 43 FC/100 ml can be violated for a few samples and the 90th percentile linfit can still be met if the database includes a significant proportion of low FC values. In other words, less frequent sampling may pose a greater risk for a small number of high values forcing classification of approved areas to be changed to a conditional classification. Conditional classifications require much more intensive management and a great deal of effort to accurately define the exact condition under which areas 14 need to be closed. Thus, frequent sampling in areas typically unaffected by pollution events will most likely support the more desired approved classification. V111. References Gottholm, B.W. and D.D. Turgeon. 1992. Toxic Contaminants in the Gulf of Maine. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Oceanic Resources Conservation and Assessment, Rockville, MD. 12 pp. Hughes, R. and J.D. Brown. 1995. Water Quality Testing Along Berry Brook in Rye, Greenland, and Portsmouth. NH Office of State Planning, Concord, NH. National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). 1993. Manual of Operations Part 1: Sanitation of Growing Areas. 1993 revision. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NEDES). 1995. Coastal Watershed Status report. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES). 1994. State of New Hampshire 1994 Section 305(b) Water Quality Report. New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, Concord, NH. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department (NHF&G). 1991. Coastal Shellfish and Water Quality: Progress report. New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, NH. Seacoast Science Center. 1992. Exploring Odiome Point: A Guide to its Natural and Social History. Mawson, J.S. (Ed.). Friends of Odiorne Point, Rye, NH. Sowles, J., R. Crawford, J. Machell, G. Atkinson, P. Hennigar, S. Jones, J. Pederson, and K. Coombs. 1994. Evaluation of Gulfwatch: 1992 Pilot Project of the Gulf of Maine Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan. The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, Boston, MA. Sowles, J., R. Crawford, J. Machell, G. Atkinson, P. Hennigar, S. Jones, J. Pederson, and K. Coombs. 1992. Evaluation of Gulfwatch: 1991 Pilot Project of the Gulf of Maine Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan. The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, Boston, MA. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center (USEPA/NCCOSC). 1994. Estuarine Ecological Risk Assessment of Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, Kittery, Maine. Technical report 1627. Naval Command, Control and Ocean Surveillance Center, San Diego, CA. Wentworth-Rye. 1990. Wentworth-by-the-Sea Golf Course. Wentworth-Rye Impact Assessment Report. 15 Table 1. Potential pollution sources impacting the growing area with relevant sample sites. Site Source Water body Impact Relevant sample sites PS I Wentworth marina Little Harbor Direct LH2, T13 PS2 Wentworth condominiums stormwatef Little Harbor Direct LH2 PS3 Little Harbor mooring field Little Harbor Direct Tl, LH2, T13 PS4 Wentworth golf course Little Harbor Direct T6 PS5 Portsmouth WWTP Back Channel Indirect T5 PS6 Portsmouth CSO Back Channel Indirect T9 Table 2. Sample sites used to determine water, shellfish and sediment quality in the Little Harbor area. Sample site A gency Location Purpose Tl NH DPHS mouth of Little Harbor, N breakwater classify survey area T5 NH DPHS north channel, Goat Island bridae classify survey area T6 NH DPHS Little Harbor at Sheafe's Point classify survey area T7 NH DPHS Berry Brook at Brackett Rd. classify survey area T8 NE DPHS Sagamore Creek, Mike's Marina classify survey area T9 NTH DPHS Shapleigh Island bridge classify survey area TIO NH DPHS Pierces Island bridge classify survey area T13 NI-1 DPHS Little Harbor bridge, US Rt. 113 classify survey area T14 NH DPHS Seavey Creek bridge, US Rt. 1A. classify survey area LH2 NI-I DPHS Wentworth marina classify survey area WC1 NH DPHS Witch Creek, upstream E of Foyes Rd. classify survey area WC2 UNH/JEL Witch Creek, golf course bridge tributary water WC5 UNH/JEL Witch Creek, downstream of bridge tributary water WC6 UNH/JEL Witch Creek, mouth tributary water PC1 UNH/JEL ditch on shore of Pioneer Cove, west tributary water PC2 UNH/JEL ditch on shore of Pioneer Cove, south tributary water PC4 UNH/JEL ditch on shore of Pioneer Cove, mouth tributary water PC5 UNH/JEL Pioneer Cove, mouth tributary water SCI UNH/JEL Seavey Creek, ditch on SW shoreline tributary water SC2 U N-H/J EL Seavey Creek, ditch on SW shoreline tributary water WRLI UNH/JEL wetland ditch on Wild Rose Lane tributary water SS1 UNH/JEL Seavey Creek clam flat, near mouth sediment sample SS2 UNH/JEL Pioneer Cove mudflat, mouth sediment sample SS3 UNTH/JEL Witch Creek mudflat sediment sample SS4 UNH/JEL Sheafe's Point mudflat sediment sample SS5A UN-H/JEL Triangle clam flat, SW sediment sample SS5B UNH/JEL Triangle clam flat, near bridge sediment sample SS6 UNH/JEL Wentworth flat sediment sample Clam flat l/CF1 UNH/JEL Odiorne Point State Park, SW shore clam sample Clam flat 2/CF2 UNH/JEL Odiorne Point State Park, N shore clam sample Little Harbor/NHLH UNH/JEL bed near the mouth, NE shore mussel sample Shapleigh I/NHSI UNH/JEL bed near bridge, NE shore of island mussel sample Clark Cove/MECC UNH/JEL bed along SW corner of cove mussel sample Hampton Harbor/NHHS UNH/JEL bed under US Rt I bridge on N side mussel sample Brave Boat Harbor/MEBH UNH/JEL bed along channel near mouth, S side mussel sample Odiome Point/NHOP UNH/JEL bed in cove at SE comer of point mussel sample Table 3. Fecal coliform concentrations (per 100 ml) in water samples analyzed by NHDPHS: 1/93-6/96. Durham rainfall (in/24h) in time prior to sampling Site TI T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 TIO T13 T14 LH2 WCI 48 24 0 Date* 3/2/93 1.8 2 2 1.8 7.8 0.01 0 0 4/6/93 31 6.8 6.8 17 6.8 49 7.8 0.06 0 0 5/4/93 2 2 7.8 4.5 2 4 13 0 0 0 6/8/93 23 1.8 33 17 13 17 21 0.47 0 0 7/6/93 2 1.8 64 17 33 33 70 0 0 0 9/14/93 1.8 7.8 4.5 11 17 49 2 0 0 0 10/19/93 79 6.8 33 230 2 17 23 0.04 0 0 12/7/93 6.8 22 46 13 22 23 4.5 1.7 0 0 1/11/94 13 49 17 0 0 0 4/5/94 1.8 1.8 4.5 1.8 2 130 7.8 0 0.23 0 6/7/94 6.8 1.8 21 48 11 7.8 1.8 0 0 0 7/19/94 1.8 2 23 33 1.8 49 4 0 0 0 8/16/94 1.8 1.8 2 2 1.8 49 6.8 0 0 0.33 9/20/94 4.5 7.8 17 26 110 33 13 0.77 0 0 10/18/94 14 2 1.8 7.8 23 13 0 0 0 11/29/94 49 70 280 79 130 3500 33 0 1.37 0.11 6/19/95 1.8 1.8 33 6.8 46 4 0 0 0 7/5/95 4.5 2 4.5 2 49 17 2 0 0 0 10/17/95 330 2 46 0.91 tr 0.01 10/31/95 1.8 7.8 13 130 23 11 4 2 7.8 2 tr tr tr 11/28/95 4.5 7.8 6.8 13 7.8 2 6.8 4.5 7.8 7.8 23 0 0 0.01 12/19/95 1.8 1.8 1.8 11 1.8 1.8 2 1.8 2 2 170 tr 0 0 1/30/96 79 6.8 13 230 14 23 11 11 49 17 0.09 0 0.08 2/27/96 1.8 4.5 4.5 2 11 1.8 21 1.8 4.5 6.8 58 0 0 0 3/26/96 1.8 2 4.5 9.3 13 11 2 4.5 2 2 0 0 0.01 4/29/96 1.8 2 17 17 33 95 2 7.8 7.8 790 0.03 0 0.21 5/28/96 1.8 1.8 1.8 4.5 2 4.5 1.8 1.8 1.8 180 0 0 0 6/18/96 4.5 4.5 4.5 11 4.5 4.5 0 0 0 6/25/96, 2 230 1.8 33 2, 49 1.8 1.8 6.8 2 0.18 0 0.1 Geometric mear 4.2 4.7 9.5 18.1 13.3 7.7 22.8 5.2 4.9 4.6 29.2 Std. deviation 3.2 3.1 3.6 4.9 4.2 4.1 4.3 2.9 2.1 2.7 7.4 n 27 26 26 10 23 25 27 25 10 11 10.0 #>43/100 ml, 2 2 3 2 5 3 8 1 0 1 5.0 %>43/100 ml 7.4 7.7 11.5 20.0 21.7 12.0 29.6 4.0 0.0 9.1 50.0 90th percentile 18.7 17.2 49.3 127.9 84.0 50.3 143.2 20.4 12.4 16.5 380.51 Samples analyzed for 6/19/95 through 11/28/95 were reported as " DES -LAB values. Table 4. Fecal coliform concentrations (per 100 ml) in water samples analyzed by JEL: 7/95-6/96, and 24 h rainfall amounts on and before sampling dates. Durham rainfall (in/24h) in time prior to sampling date Site TI T6 T7 T8 T13 T14 LH2 WC1 48h 24h 0 Date 7/20/95 1 2 20 35 0.5 51 5 0.26 tr 0 8/3/95 30 45.5 50 385 22 173 39 0 0 0.22 817/95 126 20 0.95 0.44 0.19 8/22/95 - 10 1.5 9.5 0 0 0 9/15/95 1 1 1 2 4 3.5 27 1 0.15 0 0 9/21/95 0.9 6 0.9 0.9 11 5 2 17 0 0 0 10/5/95 0.9 9 440 4 20 17 40 0.3 0.3 0.01 11115195 105 154 980 460 860 294 3350 0 0.08 2.68 2/27/96 1 6 4 12 1 2 5.5 130 0 0 0 5/9/96 9 12 38 20.5 0 0 0 5/28/96 0.5 2.5 1.5 3.5 0 M tr 5/30/96 3 8 250 5.5 15.5 2.5 56 tr 0 0.33 6/10/96 0.5 4 124 3.5 3.5 18 3 34 0 tr 0.1 6/18/96 9.5 19 52 7.5 12.5 33.5 10 0 0 0 6/25/96 0.5 1 24 2 5 1.5 12 0.18 0 0.1 Geometric mean 2.4 6.3 22.2 11.9 10.9 9.2 12.4 29.2 Standard deviation 5.6 4.4 9.7 8.2 6.2 6.1 5.6 7.8 n 13 10 12 7 15 13 13 11 # > 43/100 ml 1 1 6 2 2 1 2 2 % > 43/100 ml 7.7 10.0 50.0 28.6 13.3 7.7 15.4 18.2 Table 5. Fecal coliform concentrations (per 100 ml) in tributary sites during dry periods in June, 1996. WITCH CREEK Witch Creek Witch Creek Witch Creek Witch Creek upstream golf course downstream mouth bridge from bridge Site WC1 WC2 WC5 WC6 Date 6/10/96 34 2 1.8 4 6/18/96 10 Geometric mean 29.2 2.0 1.8 4.0 PIONEER COVE Pioneer Cove Pioneer Cove Pioneer Cove Pioneer Cove ditch west ditch south ditch mouth near mouth Site PCI PC2 PC4 PC5 Date 6/10/96 2 2 6/18/96 6 0.5 2 4 Geometric mean 3.5 1.0 2.0 4.0 BERRY BROOK/SEAVEY CREEK Berry Seavey Creek Seavey Creek Brook ditch west ditch west downstream Site T7 sci SC2 Date 6/10/96 124 6/18/96 52 2 2 Geometric mean 22.2 2.0 2.0 WILD ROSE LANE WETLAND Wild Rose Lane wetland Site WRL1 Date 6/10/96 6/18/96 6 Geometric mean 6 Table 6. Dissolved nitrate, ammonium and ortho-phosphate concentrations (@iM) at Little Harbor sites along the shoreline of the Wentworth- by- the-Sea golf course: May-June, 1996. Site Nitrate AmmonILIM Phosphate 5/16/96 T6 5.87 1.82 0.41 WC6 3.62 6.56 0.32 PC5 3.19 2.93 0.49 6/10/96 T6 I Table 7. Tissue concentrations for metal (ppm; gg/g DW) and organic (ppb; ng/g DW) contaminants in blue mussels from areas in and around Little Harbor: 1991-94. 1991-92 1991-92 1992 1993 1991-94 Ave. 1993 Ave. Little Harbor Shapleigh 1. Odiome Point Hampton Harbor Clark Cove/Seavey 1. Brave Boat Harbor FDA Rye/,New Castle Portsmouth Rye Hampton Beach Kittery Kittery Metal (ppm) guideline* NH NH NH NH ME ME Ag 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 Al 340 370 94 190 135 Cd 25 2.1 1.8 2.1 2.0 2.6 Cr 87 6.6 7.8 1.6 3.7 3.7 CU 46 55 6.4 8.3 7.0 Fe 440 630 270 640 680 Hg 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 Ni 533 3.6 3.0 1.4 2.2 2.9 Pb 11.5 4.7 4.6 2.4 6.2 2.3 Zn 240 150 120 110 99 % solids 10.4 12.0 16.5 14.3 12.5 Organic compound (ppb) PCBs 13,000 32 51 32 9.6 66 3.2 PAHs 170 380 130 71 330 170 Cl'd Pesticides -2,000 15.1 17.9 8.8 4.2 11.8 ND Established action limits in fish and shellfish (USFDA, 1990; 1993). TABLE 8. Water Column Stratification in the Study Area FLOOD TIDE 5/9/96 Station Depth Range Temperature Salinity Temp Differential Salinity Differential Measured (m) Range Range Bottom to surface Bottom to surface Harbor Mouth 3.5-6.0 5.5-8.1 22.8-26.8 2.60C 4 ppt Center of Mooring Field 3.0-5.5 5.5-7.8 23.1-26.1 2.30C 3 ppt Marina Fuel Dock 3.0-5.5 5.8-8.8 23.9-26.9 30C 3 ppt Rte 1B Bridge 3.0-5.5 5.5-8.0 25.1-26.8 2.50C 1.7 ppt Sheafes Point 0.5-3.0 5.5-8.0 24-27 2.50C 3 ppt Pioneer Road Bridge 1.0-3.0 9.3-10.0 21.9-22.2 0.70C 0.31 ppt EBB TIDE 5/16196 Station Depth Range Temperature Salinity Max Temp, Differential MaxSalinity Differential Measured (m) Range Range Bottom to surface Bottom to surface Harbor Mouth 3.5-6.0 8.9-11 24.2-26 2.10C 1.8 ppt Center of Mooring Field 3.0-5.5 7.5-8 24-25 0.50C 1 ppt Marina Fuel Dock 3.0-5.5 8.0-9 23.8-24.8 1 OC 1 ppt Rte 1B Bridge 3.0-5.5 8-8.8 24-24.8 0.8 OC 0.8 ppt Sheafes Point 0.5-3.0 10.8-11 21-25 0.2 OC 0.2 ppt Pioneer Road Bridge 1.0-3.0 11.2-12 15.9-24.2 0.8 OC 0.2 ppt Table 9. TIDAL CIRCULATION IN THE STUDY AREA FLOOD TIDE CIRCULATION Station Direction (magnetic) Velocity Range cm/sec Avg. Velocity cin/sec Harbor Mouth (1) 1600 8 to 40 27 Center of Mooring Field (2) 800 7 to 32 20 Marina Fuel Dock (3) 900 6 to 40 25 Rte 1 A Bridge (4) 1650 13-115 75 Sheafes Point (5) 500 2 to 25 19 Pioneer Road Bridge (6) 3300 7 to 30 20 EBB TIDE CIRCULATION Station Direction (magnetic) Velocity Range cm/sec Avg. Velocity cm/sec Harbor Mouth (1) 3420 7 to 45 30 Center of Mooring Field (2) 2700 3 to 32 23 Marina Fuel Dock (3) 2800 6 to 55 30 Rte 1 A Bridge (4) WO 7 to 120 80 Sheafes Point (5) 2050 5 to 27 25 Pioneer Road Bridge (7) 1400 7 to 37 28 Table 10. Bacterial indicator concentrations (per 100 g DW sediment or shellfish) in surface sediments and in shellfish from sites in the Little Harbor area: 1995-96. SEDIMENTS Site Seavey flat Pioneer flat Witch Creek Sheafes Point Triangle flat Triangle flat Wentworth flat SW near bridge Site SS]. SS2 SS3 SS4 SS5A SS5B SS6 C. perfringens 110000 30000 133000 222000 318000 270000 1990 Fecal coliforms 22 71 67 71 120 220 3 E. coli 22 35 67 71 120 220 3 SHELLFISH (Fecal coliformsIlOO ml) Site Seavey flat Odiorne east Witch Creek Odiorne west Rt. I B bridge Triangle flat Wentworth flat Berry flat flat flat north near bridge Brook Site 6/SS1 2 3/SS3 I T13 4/SS5B 5/SS6 T7 Date 8f7195 3000 .240 8/21/95 300 110 900 8/23/95 2200 80 9/15/95 130 10/3/95 130 Geometric meai 130 300 110 900 3000 2200 102 240 All analyses are for clam (Mya arenaria) tissue except 8f7/95 T7 (C. virginica) and TI 3 (Mytilus edulis) Table 11. Effect of rainfall events (>0.63"/48 h) on fecal coliform levels in DPHS and JEL samples collected from the approved growing area. SAMPLE DATES DPHS ToLil Rainfall > 0.63" Rainfall 0-< 0.63" # of sample dates 29 1 28 # >43/100 ml 5 1 4 # < 43/100 ml 24 0 24 JEL Toml Rainfall > 0.63" Rainfall 0-< 0.63" # of sample dates I 1 10 # >43/100 ml 3 2 # < 43/100 ml 8 8 Combined Total Rainfall > 0.63" Rainfall 0-< 0.63" # of sample dates 40 2 38 # >43/100 ml 8 2 6 # < 43/100 ml 32 0 32 WATER SAMPLES DPHS Toml Rainfall > 0.63" Rainfall 0-< 0.63" # of water samples 99 3 96 # >43/100 ml 7 2 5 # < 43/100 ml F 92 1 91 JEL Total Rainfall > 0.63" Rainfall 0-< 0.63" # of water samples 44 5 39 # >43/100 ml 8 5 3 # < 43/100 ml 36 0 36 Combined Total Rainfall > 0.63" Rainfall 0-< 0.63" # of water samples 143 8 135 # >43/100 ml 15 7 8 # < 43/100 ml 128 1 127 1114111,19h ame or f - I- VoTn CO) 5 Plaric Minna Gas kP i.. Ion 181 ap A co STIUMON ST 4,v I E tho a 2 MCO 66 Pit W-4 r 20 C F F;@ t' ?* go ... .!& 0 "Frimej tq - Lady. 3 to - .. - .. We 37 0 che 4*la%d 'P 0 LA) >@ 0 40 0 33 Li 1.11110 fill: -1 .1 .6 1 R -CIA wholet 9 ISO S11 r 57 1 PO TQt WA'S @40 H 4t .. .:,.j R - -4i4/K C. STAVIC* I @ t - .. ';- 0 2 2 Al ey t APBO 0 "2 Sheoles ro J P1 Wenlworth Goll Club Quaffy Cjq 24 J" A; Ce 7 .000S 0 of Corner 0 1429 N am rbor M, 2 e ILO. A Figure 1. map or the Little Harbor, Witch Creek and Seavey Creek survey area. Inset show.4 New Hampshire. Me*, C)L- Ct 7 C2 ar REGULATED 28 2 8 S1 AREA 165. 101 %6- 21 fx'0 SEAVEY ISLAM; rwoo A; 31 island 3 3 AMP I Pf5rRICTCD ARCA 1#0 36 37 X 3$ @2 2076 4 33 37 36 lax 39 x twe Al 27 -1 A 55 27 Mo. CL M r 3S. -*0 Ar S2 it 16--UPI mass" 1 70 4ftV SQUANS 57 Mon. ct@ ISO ' 14 1; 1 '"M.r-ck 70 Nd' CFMM* 54 W. CL" 46 Ct. 43 a V% suln'tin fit. 11W .-I .. . 59 a % '0 P R 2.50 2" 4M "Rall Mon V jrgv, .01t C11 as 71.3% 35 If - I -r ---7 %64 45 6( E lot 13 F1 Co 9j. 9 3 PS6 .*M CL "Irf NOW sell V VRWT CL %a V, lima Rival[ * '. I , -%4, \ L ANCHORAGFIA C &ISPECIA NIII .10 ORTSM UA C. 01108 CA to 2 4 tat W Aif 0 15n- '2k L 4ft. At /X LITTLE HARBOR Gf* The Contra" depth WM 6 MW kW 0 WkM Of trorn Ihe chonr* onewco (43'M'27*N. ?0 43143*W.) to the fork, thence 4 feet kw o vWdm hft *6 0 of @0 feel PS2 t in fl* noith dionnet, OW 5 Not kv 0 C @'Vl I YAM of 60 feel IM S090"KNO Creft to the oxw bridge, and 6 feet In I* anchorage c90 An 0 4310.T211N. ?Q*"'3t*W. 6 Aif Oft loot '4P 1, P S 3 Hill w) a 04 0 It C. Ne I 1 9 7 Me lost to Msiplr. S@t 7 watt, C 7 "7 9 t MARBOR 3 @r PS4 CL 16 FT *6 06. 4P ....... . ..... jjCVL 3 9 V ilt.2 OV-0 rww CAN C). V*Y** Corner SOUNDINGS IN FEE Odiornes Figure 2. Potential pollution sources in and around the survey area. @@ 1. 1 - @ - - - L 58 1 69 Pool Point 75 amander CO) 5 4:., L t t ed-,, I 71 ii __tlS!an Pt 3 COtiSTITUTION GAS Riversi at ST 11 Cen@ tho Se 66 1? 9 T9 I e I 4? a zo '-Fran- 0 It -20-- Lady! 0. POS . - - 6. :.0 - . @ M - --- @r. - lb 0 swai 37 JIM chs G' LA u 0 Rill 0 `2 Oee J"- Oqj U1 -00 /@ 1@ ) I "@-@Oos 0 k Isian awe4w- V 54 33 Sl SUIF6 @)@ - -3 0- QA 16 tj 4- M TSMO Ii P Nh 57 IP r RT.STARK--@- 61 Hj L H 2 V@4 -LITTE ey 38 -20 i7: `3 0 H A B6 "'P e i. T 8). Sheafes ros T 1 I T . 11., 431% 1 37 Rt P Wentworth T6 Golf Club *4L* 31 11 Quafoy 4d 42 e, 24 W i t c 0 39 ubstatiop 34 S *4 V 9 WC1 T 14 Cor e Foy s r 29 FZ 0 \@53 n 14 29 rbor T7 M. SM ea Ce@i af -?o A2 P 5/ .1S "I Figure 3. NH DPHS routine sampling sites in the survey area. IKII NER Islan 'VA Olijva MECC 4-5 oint nder rL--ZQ.-- PO I F6int 75 I@Fplarce 69 amander 11il" 55 Goat COJ S4.`1 island Isl 3 p, A G COV4STITUTION -AST' MEB' Ali ST @T-UE tho a p 6, 66 NHSI Frame Ft 0 G rn" 20 L_.S Uy. 3 40 n I CL.- Val 37 /-L"c h s 0 IslIcA d (/__ ell .83 y 0 40 2 pit 0 vu k Isl Sl'l F tie 54 A 1 .1 , , + 33 e, Q-:z, 'WRLI Whal G PO TSMO lf@-_ p J.. 57 @Ip M 1. . @/ 4 kN 4, 94 2 r.T'S TAnK S S 6A Hr 2 SS5B 4&2A_ Y, 4 ITTL f 4k, ey 38 1 A NHLH SS5A HABIO ht 7n :Z.@ 9 0 ig 0 1-e 6 4triksh f ea es ros 22 37 1 Wentworth SS4 p Golf Club Quafly SS3/WC6 V e 42 C CF2 Ow 24 ......... WC2 W i t c 1177-1 X A( CF1 0 1 - D * 39 SS@Ipcs . . . . . . @ubslafiojn r 34 V/ Sci. 9 SS1 P cl -AAAPC4 SC2 PC 2 Is Foy@s Ce t Corner AM, 2; ld@ .)) li@. 0 @53 1,51 a n 59 A@ S M rbor ea q Ce T 20 NHOP e p i Figure 5. Little Harbor and Environs HABITAT MAP 7 miup 4 Aw lei %L 0" k, 0@ wd ap" p Scale: 1 inch to 3500 ft. u0sm" of "Sw MWDK Ism LEGEND DATA SOURCES Lows Lup: Said am* wicaeriuS sum A Productive herom 6- A-66- N-h* od M% Soft-shell dmn beds nesd stims 0-4 bb- bb.A. Uk tqm -ftft@* @ -wk- Okwd FM Eelpm beds Oy*w beds M WA G- U." N.@ -6 ft@ Q." ftw- d".w. amp. oft 08prey ."do Mike opm. bh. = FA A G- ow"..16 M.W ad" -1 WA. a." FNW- Mqw. Mf- &VL mm@ &. - 6- Q.@ ft@ A.-& 0.6, mm a& ..h- US= OW &@ G-Pk* IMM -4 Nd- &ft-h. Lk UNK saft .h &am ftd- W.O." M". d- 6. Mw M 110L 0 S ca land\@ Casil; 20,3 U 01 (.f NO TO h @7 I? LITTL -20 on- 2'HA RX Sheafes FroA 473 Pt p @enlworth Co" Club 3. 201 AV/ W itch (FO D RH 0 C.10 0 C ner 2;. P 10 N E M, Cam 7 Ory IV, Figure 6. Map of the study area showing the locations of current velocity and direction measurerr Figure 7. Fecal-borne bacteria in sediments from different sites in Little Harbor: Spring, 1996. 350000 250 E)-- CP 300000 FC 200 - 250000 E 150 200000 Cn 150000 E 100 100000 50 50000 0 i 0 Seavey flat Pioneer Witch Cr Sheafes Pt Triangle Triangle Wentworth flat flat-SW flat-bridge flat Little Harbor sites Figure 8. Fecal coliforms in clams and sediments from different sites in Little Harbor: 1995-96. 2500 250 clams 2000 sediment 200 1500 150 1000 100 500 50 0 0 Seavey flat Pioneer flat Witch Cr Triangle flat Wentworth flat Little Harbor sites Figure 9. Fecal coliforms at sites along transects of tributaries (WC-Witch Ck; PC- Pioneer Cove; SC-Seavey Cr) to Little Harbor during dry periods in June, 1996. 60 50 40 30 20 10 .0 U U U U U U U U U Cd 03 r. V I= 1-3 Mouth of Little Harbor (site TI) Rt. 1B bridge (site T13) 10 40 9 35 -a- FWW colifo- Enwro@i 30 7 C. pcrfringcm 25 6 5 20 a-- 4 Is 3 10 2 0 0 LOW Mid rise Mid ebb High Low Mid rise Midcbb High TWO ftge 'ndW stage Sheafes Point (site TO Rt. 1A (site T14) 12 25 10 20 0 En@i C. pcrfrintm C. pafdg- 9 6 U 10 U 4 2 0 0 LA)W Mid rise Mid ebb High Low Mid rise Midcbb High TWW gage "age Figure 10. Fecal coliform concentrations (per 100 mi) at sites during different tidal stages: Spring, 1996. APPENDIX A Assessment of the Clam (Mya arenaria) population in the study area Seven potential clamflats were identified in the study area. Locations of the flats are shown in Figure A I. Five of the seven flats were surveyed in the summer and fall of 1995, and the two remaining flats were surveyed in the spring of 1996. Spatfall from the 1995 spawning season was measured on the three largest flats in the spring of 1996. Area Estimates of the areal extent of five of the seven clamflats were made from existing maps and field drawings. These figures are presented in Table Al. Flats range in area from 0.4 acres at flat # 1 to 12.1 acres at flat #5. The areas presented in the table correspond to suitable clam habitat only, and not the total intertidal area. Based on our field observations, suitable clam habitat consists primarily of sandy substrate, as the softer, muddy intertidal areas yielded very few clams. Total area for the five flats surveyed was estimated to be 35 acres. Density Clam density was determined using a series of randomly placed radial transect lines. The location of each transect was chosen from a series of grids for each clainflat using a random numbers table. A center stake with a 10 in line attached (bearing a mark at each meter) was placed in the center of a grid and a 1/2 in diameter circle bearing eight equidistant numbers was drawn around the center point. Placement of the quadrat was determined by obtaining two random numbers from the table, the first corresponding to the numbered position on the circle, the second to the metered distance from the center point. A 1/8 m2 quadrat was then placed at the center of the randomly chosen mark. All sediment underlying the quadrat was excavated to a depth of 30 cm using a clam fork and all clams were removed by hand, counted and measured. Five quadrats were run for each transect. The total number of quadrats examined was: 10 for clainflat #1; 85 for clarnflat # 2; 30 for clainflat 4; 75 for clamflat #5; and 90 for clarnflat #6 ; and 50 for clarnflat #7. Clain densities range from a low of 1.6 clams /m2 on clarnflat #1 to 12.5 /m2 on clainflat #4, with a mean density of 5.1 clams/m2 (Table A I). Clarnflat #3 had very an extremely low density of clams (Table A I). The intertidal substrate in the flat was extremely soft, and was determined to be an unsuitable substrate for Mya. Abundance The estimate abundance of clams in the study area was calculated from density and areal estimates and appears in Table Al. Total abundance was estimated at approximately 600,000 clams or roughly 530 bushels of harvestable clams. Length frequency distributions Length frequency distributions of the clams at four of the seven flats are shown in Figures A2 through A6. Though there are some differences from flat to flat, most clams were > than 30 mm, with the greatest number of clams in the flats in the 40-70 min size range. According to established shell growth curves, most clams in these flats are > 3 years old, indicating poor recruitment or survival of larvae and/or spat in the 1993 and 1994 seasons. 1995 Spatfall Spatfall for the 1995 spawning season was measured on the three largest clainflats in the study area in the spring of 1996. Though spatfall. assessment in the spring would tend to underestimate actual settlement and metamorphosis, it more accurately predicts overwintering survival. Spat were sampled using a 10 cm coring tube. Samples were taken at four equidistant points in the intertidal zone, extending along a line perpendicular to the water line from the upper 1 intertidal to the low tide line. These perpendicular lines were spaced 10m apart. At each sampling point two 8 cm cores were obtained and sieved on site through a 1 nun sieve. All clams were removed, counted and measured. Of the three flats surveyed, the greatest density of Mya arenaria spat was found at the Seavey Creek flat, where density was 106 clams/m2. The mean size of the clams was 4.55 mm. and ranged from 2.2-8.9 mm. Spat density at the Wentworth flat was 53/m2, while the mean size was 6.05 mm and size range 2.65-12.8. Spat density at the Odiorne flat was low, with only 18 spat/m2. The mean size was 5.55 mm and ranged from 3.3-7.9 mm. Spat density at the four intertidal levels was compared using ANOVA. Though fewer spat were found in the upper intertidal cores, no significant differences were indicated by ANOVA at any of the flats. Spat density in the study area is relatively low compared to productive clarnflats where > 1000/m2 are often found. This may be due to the low density of adults throughout the area, in addition to high predation pressure from worms and crabs. 2 Table A 1. Clam Density and Abundance in the Study Area Clarnflat Location Acres Density Total Area Abundance Bushels #/m2 m2 1200 clarns/bu 1 Odiorne-West 0.4 1.6 1,618 2,589 2 .2 Odiorne-East 8.6 4.4 34,796 153,102 128 3 Witch Creek Unsuitable substrate 4 Triangle 3.2 12.53 12,950 162,264 135 5 Wentworth 12.1 2.02 48,968 98,915 82 6 Seavey 6.4 5.07 25,900 131,313 109 7 Berrys Brook 4.2 4.65 18,817 87,499 73 Total 34.9 5.0 143,049 635,682 530 TABLE A 2. 1995 Spatfall in the study area Clamflat Location Cores #spat #/m2 Mean size (mm) Size range (mm) 2 Odiorne East 120 17 19 5.33 3.3-7.9 5 Wentworth 120 49 53 6.05 2.6-12.8 6 Seavey Creek 68 56 106 4.55 2.2-8.9 A 4 Osf@ lancl\@ rw Casti; 20-3 6v 131 t wimmiAt -MO -TH' L. tv 0 @7 A so, 13 Or 13 m 20 '@HARBOR e Sheafes @roS@ <1 @enlworlh pt p Go" Club 3 di I@j a r rr_", e, U 8 MIL L'O'f Witch (FO D R, R 0 9 0 0 L".9 ner 0 HM 29 E.9 Ile N Cem - - Figure A 2. Size Frequency Distribution of clams at clarnflat #2 12 10 8 LL 0 6 w LU zn 4 2 0 7 14 27 40 53 67 80 MEAN OF SIZE CLASS (mm) A 6 Figure A 3. Size frequency distribution of clams at clamflat #4 14 12 10 E 8 0 6 E 2 Z 4 2 0 7 14 27 40 53 67 80 Mean of Size Class (mm Figure A 4. Size frequency distribution of clams at clamflat #5 14 12 10 r: .9 8 0 6 E Z 4 2 0 7 14 27 40 53 67 80 Mean of Size Class (mm A 8 Figure A 5. Size frequency distribution of clams at clamflat 6 16 14 12 E 10 0 8 E 0 6 Z 4 2 7 14 27 40 53 67 80 Mean of Size Class (mm AQ Figure A 6. Size frequency distribution of clams at clarnflat 7 7 6 to 5 E M 0 4 0 3 2 0 7 14 27 40 53 67 80 MEAN SIZE CLASS (mm) A10 Appendix B. Properties and septic systems in towns surrounding the survey area. MAP-LOT# NAME MAILING ADDRESS PROPERTY ADDRESS SEPTIC INFO OTHERINFO RYE 22-57 Nona Philbrook 300 Central Rd. Rye 03870 ? Brackett Rd. Rye 03870 vacantlot 22-58 Pamela S. Desiardins 181 Brackett 181 Brackett new septic in 1990 22-59 Dr. Ernest C. Desjardins 171 Brackett 171 Brackett subdivision approved 1971 22-60 Dante L. Tosi 165 Brackett 165 Brackett subdivision a proved 1980 22-61 Marion S. Rand 218 Wallis Rd. Rye ? Brackett larqe vacant lot 22-6i- Robert J. Leary 135., Brackett 135 Brackett sub ivision approval 1981 22-63 Richard Spaulding 121 Brackett 121 Brackett septic approved 1993 22-64 Murray L. & Diane C. Mason 115 Brackett 115 Brackett new septic 1988, replaced 1990 22-65 Bordman G. Randall 99 Brackett 99 Brackett 22-66 John F. Fort 111 2003 Miltord St. Houston TX 116 Brackett now septic 1988, replaced 1990 cross listed with 22-64 22-67 Lee H. Roper 85 Brackett 85 Brackett new house 1977 22-68 Elizabeth M. Wendall 6 Brackett 39 Brackett septic approved 1993 39 acres bordering Seav y's Creek 22-68-1 Jeffery H. Marple PO Box 4130 Portsmouth 51 Brackett subdivision Approved 1980 22-68-2 Kevin Barton 35 Brackett 35 Brackett septic approved 1992 borders Seavey's Creek 22-70 Anne Reagan Costa Mesa CA ? Brackett vacantlot 22-71 Elizabeth C. Hoffman 17 Brackett 17 Brackett 22-72 David E. Junkins 3 Brackett 3 Brackett 22-73 David E. Junkins 3 Brackett 179 Pioneer St borders Seavey's Creek 22-74 Town of Rye 10 Central Rd ? Pioneer St 58.7 acres bordering Seavey's Creel 22-75 James A. McLaughlin 57 Park Terrace East, NY,NY 115 Pioneer 22-76 James A. Robertson Jr. 85 Pioneer 85 Pioneer 22-77 Town of Rye 10 Central Rd ? Pioneer 21.3 acres of vacant lot 22-78 22-79 22-80 22-81 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Pioneer part of WBTS 22-8i- Florence L. Ouellette 182 Poineer 182 Pioneer 22-83 Stuart R. Kahl 200 Pioneer 200 Pioneer new house in 1989 22-84 Mlcael J. Simchik 260 Pioneer 235 Pioneer vacant lot bordering Berry's Brook 22-85 Mendell G. Cummings 40 Brackett 215 Pioneer vacantlot 22-86 Charles P. Wendell 6 Brackett 6 Brackett 22-87 Donna M. Thoobolch 20 Brackett 20 Brackett building permit issueed 1990 22-88 Midred E. Welsh 30 Brackett 30 Brackett subdiv. apr. 1978, purchased 1990 22-89 Micael F. Thiel 34 Brackett 34 Brackett _@_ew_septic passed inspection 1993 _Iarge lot bordering Berry's Brook 122-90 Wendall G. Cummings 40 Brackett 140 Brackett septic installed 1979 w/ )each field 122-91 Dana F. Kent PO Box 95 Rye 150 Brackett Inew septic 1993 22-92 Frederick P. Jeter 60 Brackett 60 Brackett septic built & approved 1089 22-93 Forrest L. Beasley 16 Shoals View Dr. Rye 100 Brackett 22-94 George Darragh Jr. Little Silver NJ 110 Brackett 22-95A Dolores F. Untz 120 Brackett 120 Brackett -septic approved 1991 22-95B James von Priel Fardelmann 380 Grant Ave Portsmouth 150 Brackett septic @!pproved 1991 new house built 1991 22-96 Robert W. Scherer 140 Brackett 140 Brackett -septic approved 1993 cross listed w/ 22-100 22-98 Town of Rye 10 Central Rd ? Brackett @ vacwt lots 22-99 Marion S. Rand 218 Wallis Rd Rye ? Bracken vacantlot 22-100 Gary W. Wendell 189 Lincoln Ave Portsmouth 140 Brackett -septic approved 1993 22-101 Conservation Commision PO Box 429 Rye ? Brackett vacantlot 22-102 Domenico Scognamiglio 1210 Ocean Blvd Rye 170 Brackett new septic approved in 1992 Malfunctioning septic in 1979 22-103 Mada S. Manougan 180 Brackett 180 Brackett new house 1986 22-104 Wesley C. Pike Jr. 88 Temple St Nashua 190 Brackett - new septic 1993 23-4 Town Conservation Comission Wallis Sands State Park 23-11 Town Conservation Comission 3.10 acres vacant lot 23-12 Town Conservation Cornission 2.48 acres vacantlot 23-13 Town Conservation Comission 2.83 acres vacant lot 23-14 Town Conservation Comission 10.05 acres vacant lot borderinq Seavey's Creek 23-15 Town Conservation Comission 65.45 acres vacant lot borderi@q Sea"e Ls-Creek 24-1 William S. Dugan 97 Morning St. Portsmouth 31 Pioneer Bathroom renovations 1991-- 24-2 Robert M. Brown 23 Pioneer 21 Pioneer new septic installed & approved "g 24-3 Henry J. Cavaretta 73 Sagamore Rd. 5, 11 Pioneer Foye's Corner restaurant, store, etc 24-28 Bruce D. Graves 191 Wentworth 191 Wentworth property crosses street --- 24-29 Frances Kost 27 Baycliff Rd. Portsmouth ? Wentworth 24-30 Split Rock Cove Trust 507 State St. Portsmouth 135 Wentworth 24-31 Brian K. Berry 141 Wentworth 141 Wentworth 24-32 Alfred M. McKenna 139 Wentworth 139 Wentworth 24-33 Elsa G. Sonnabend 30 Kadaya Rd Waben MA 129 Wentwirth now septic 1986 24-34 Ruth B. FOrd 125 Wentworth 125 Wentworth leach field installed 1969 24-35 Great Island Trust Co PO Box 245 Rye 24-36 Paul R. Peterson 357 Richards Ave Ports. 117 Wentworth 24-37 Great ISland Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye 24-38 Paul S. Mackey 113 Wentworth 113 Wentworth 24-39 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 WSTS 24-40 IGreat Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 W13TS 24-41 Russel W. Badger 79 Harbor View Dr. 79 Harbor View Dr. 24-42 Carol S. Cole 77 Harbor View 77 Harbor View 24-43 Anita L. Holt 71 Harbor View 71 Harbor View new septic 1967 24-44 Francis & Helen Davis 65 Harbor View 65 Harbor View new septic 1982 124-45 John E. Seybolt 175 State St. Boston MA 159 Harbor View F24-46 lChritine B. Rasmussen 153 Harbor View 153 Harbor View 71 B I 24-47 Philip J. Voss 47 Harbor View 47 Harbor View 24-48 Richard E. Winslow Jr. I Harbor View 1 Harbor View 24-49 Anna Grace Holloway 2 Harbor View 2 Harbor View 24-50 24-51 Vinay D. Gandevia Annaheim CA 12 Harbor View new septic 1978 24-52 Samuel Francis PO Box 407 Rye 24 Harbor View new septic 1979 24-53 Edward Rowland 160 Federal St Boston MA 34 Harbor View 24-54 Janice Sandberg 40 Harbor View 40 Harbor view 24-55 Barbara C, Graper 46 Harbor View 46 Harbor View new septic 1968 24-56 Robert & Margaaret Allard 74 Harbor View 74 Harbor View new septic 1968 24-57 Robert E. McLaughlin 80 Harbor View 80 Harbor View new septic 1969 24-58 Harold C. Thomas 93 Wentworth 93 Wentworth 24-59 Barbara Y Woodman 85 Wentworth 85 Wentworth was issued permit to "replace pond' 24-60 Paul J. Holloway PO Box 3400 Exeter 71 Wentworth new house built 1991 24-61 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Wentworth WBTS- 47.77 acres 24-62 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Wentworth WBTS- 5.87 acres 24-63 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye_._. ? Wentworth WBTS- 2.13 acres 24-64 Helen G. Lawrence 106 Wentworth 106 Wentworth 24-65 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 ? Wentworth WBTS-20.85 acres 24-66 June E. Bragdon PO Box 129 Newcastle 150 Wentworth 24-67 Barbara Steppo 150 Wentworth 150 Wentworth 24-68 Edmund J. Mulcahy 812 Douglas St Manchester ? Wentworth vacantlot 24-69 Bruce R. Graves 1191 Wentworth 191 Wentworth property crosses street 24-70 Mihael Kutchey 1187 Wentworth 187 Wentworth 24-71 Town Conservation Comission ? Sagamore Rd vacant lot- 7.83 acres 24-72 Barbara Scammon PO Box 584 Rye 4 Sagamore Rd septic approved 1978 24-73 Helen F. Scammon PO Box 42 Portsmouth 8 Sagamore Rd 24-74 Arden McLean 14 Sagamore Rd 14 Sagamore Rd line adjustment approved 1991 24-75 Carol M. Fisher PO Box 126 Rye 22 Oral Ln 24-76 Witred J. Losier 2 Foyes Rd 2 Foyes Rd 24-77 Albert C. Stewart 1 Frontier St 1 Frontier St 24-78 James A. Derochemont 5 Frontier 5 Frontier 24-79 Cheryl T. McGonagle PO Box 185 Rye 9 Frontier 24-80 Leo T. Fitzgerald 15 Frontier 15 Frontier new septic 1978 24-81 Great Island Trust Co. WBTS- 8.92 acres 24-82 Michael J. Cavaretta 30 La Mer Dr Rye ? Frontier 24-83 Francis J. Drenzek PO Box 171 Rye 16 Frontier 24-84 Ernest E. Sieg PO Box 325 Rye 8 Frontier 24-85 Timothy A. Welch Jr. PO Box 586 Rye 4 Frontier new se tic 1981 24-86 James J. Cavaretta 1137 Abady Ct. FL 12 Old Ferry Landing 24-87 Barbara S. Thompson 3 Foyes Rd 3 Foyes Rd 24-88 Norman E. Lord 14 Martin Rd Kittery ME 5 Sagamore Rd 24-89 Douglas N. Sparks 26 Sagamore Rd 26 Sagamore 24-90 24-91 Glenn G. Trefethen 355 Wallis Rd ? Pioneer Rd vacantlot 24-92 Daisey A. Heath 14 Pioneer Rd 14 Pioneer 24-93 Paul M. Attaya 20 Pioneer 20 Pioneer 24-94 Paul M. Attaya 20 Pioneer 22 Pioneer realty company office 24-95 Unda & Gary Ringhoffer 28 Pioneer 28 Pioneer 24-96 James J. Cavaretta 1137 Abady Ct Fl ? Foyes Rd dredqed Withces Creek in 24-97 Michael J. Cavaretta 30 La Mer Dr Rye ? Old Ferry Landing_ 24-98 Great Island Trust Co. ? Pioneer St WBTS- 32.09 acres 24-99 Great Island Trust Co. ? Pioneer St WBTS- 8.35 acres 24-100 Edward H. Marcotte PO Box 497 Rye 44 Pioneer 24-101 John J. Herbert PO Box 95 Rye 54 Pioneer 24-102 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Pioneer St WBTS-8.35 acres 24-103- Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Pioneer St WBTS- 1.58 acres 24-104 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Pioneer St WBTS- 1.36 acres 24-105 Shirley A. Bergeron 120 Pioneer 120 Pioneer @4-106 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Poineer WBTS- 13.20 acres 24-107 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Poineer WBTS- 7:00 acres 24-108 Susan E. El-sea 220 Pioneer 220 Pioneer subdivided 1990, borders Witch Cr. 24-109 Richard Carely 240 Pioneer 240 Pioneer new septic 1992 borders Witch Cr. & Seavy's Creek 24-110 24-111 Clifford A. Priest 300 Pioneer 300 Pioneer borders Seavey's Creek 24-112 Marion Woodbridge 304 Pioneer 304 Pioneer borders Seavey's Creek 24-113 R. Carroll Carpenter 306 Pioneer 306 Pioneer borders Seavey's Creek 24-114 Pamela Anthony 320 Pioneer 320 Pioneer borders Seavey's Creek 24-115 John J. Ploski 291 Pioneer 291 Pioneer septic approved 1977 no other buildings permitted 24-116 Arthur M. Abbott 281 Pioneer 281 Pioneer 24-117 Arthur G. Pierce FIR 2 Rte 202 Barrington 265 Pioneer 4 houses on property borders Berry's Brook 24-118 John E. Gloor 200 Parson's Rd Rye ? Pioneer bad septic as of 1994 25-1 State of NH ? Ocean Blvd land across street from Odiorne 25-2 State of NH ? Ocean Blvd land across street from Odiorne 25.3 State of NH ? Ocean Blvd land across street from Odiorne 25-4 State of NH ? Ocean Blvd land across street from Odiorne 25-5 State of NH ? Ocean Blvd land across street from Odiorne 25-6 Town Conservation Comission ? Pioneer Rd & Ocean Blvd land behind the above 25-7 Town Conservation Comission ? Pioneer Rd & Ocean Blvd land behind the above 25-8 Goustav Garceau 321 Pioneer 321 Pioneer lborders Seavey's Cr. (near clam bed 26-1 Florence H. Fitzpatrick 41 Harbor View 41 Harbor View 26-2 Bradford F. Alden 35 Harbor View 35 Harbor View B4 26-3 Lorene Carney 29 Harbor View 29 Harbor View 26-4 George Hovanesian 23 Harbor View 23 Harbor View 26-5 Albert D. Frisbee 17 Harbor View 17 Harbor View new septic 1978 26-6 Robert & Toby Jesurun 11 Harbor View 11 Harbor View 26-7 Philip C. Hoyt 5 Harbor View 5 Harbor View 26.8 Michael A. Bryan 51 Wentworth 51 Wentworth -new septic 1991 26-9 William M. Binnie 35 Wentworth 35 Wentworth relocated septic in 1994 permit for dredging & fill in 1994 26-10 William J. Cronin 33 Wentworth 33 Wentworth 26-11 Francine S. Hall 29 Wentworth 27 & 29 Wentworth 26-12 Gerard J. Terpstra 23 Wentworth 23 Wentworth 26-13 Arthur W. Schlierper PO Box 133 Portsmouth 21 Wentworth 26-14 Paul Hansen 234 Parker Rd Goffstown 11 Wentworth 26 'is Roberta K. Jennings 5 Wentworth 5 Wentworth 26-16 Noele M. Clews 3 Wentworth 3 Wentworth 26-17 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Wentworth WBTS- 17785 st 26-18 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 245 Rye ? Wentworth WBTS- 21780 st Newcastle #1_1 State of NH Clampit Island vacantlot #1-2 Katherine Campbell 92 Bridge St 92 Bridge St #1-3 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 246 Newcasfle ? Bridge WBTS #1-4 Town of Newcastle ? Bridge St Map # 2 Great Island Trust Co. PO Box 246 ? Wentworth #3_1 Clifford & Margaret Heindel 129 Wild Rose Lane 129 Wild Rose Lane ocean side #3-2 Charles L. Thayer 330 Borthwicke Ave Ports. 149 Wild Rose 2 lots ocean side #3-3 State of NH Fort Stark Historical Site #3-4 Jack & Rebecca Beard 204 Wild Rose 204 Wild Rose #3-5 Joan H. Lockhart 174 Wild Rose 174 Wild Rose #3 '7 Edward&Penelope Glassmeye 4 Coves End Rd Darien CT ? Wild Rose #3-8A John B & Gladys L Smith 136 Wild Rose 136 Wild Rose #3-8B Joan White 136 Wild Rose 136 Wild Rose '04-1 Crosby, Howard& Phyllis Trust ? Wild Rose #4-3 Wentworth BTS housing development 24 lots, individuall owned #4-4 Loring & Lucille Larose Wentworth Rd ? Spring Hill Rd #44A Iren Crosby ? Spring HIII Rd #4-5 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Spring HIII Rd #4-6 Blair McCaferty 300 N River Rd Manchester .? Spring Hill Rd 1#4-7 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Spring H III Rd 1#4-8 NSH Realty Trust 1130 Box 10272 N Hampton ? Sprinq Hill Rd #4-9 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Spring HIII Rd #4-10 Ports. Marine Society 96 Spring Hill Rd 96 Spring Hill Rd #4-11 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Spring Hill Rd #4-12 Chester J. Fessenden 97 Spring Hill 97 Spring Hill #4-13 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Spring Hill #4-14 IMicael P. Larose 102 Lavender Rd 102 Lavender Rd #4_15 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Lavender Rd #4-16 Stephen D & Judith Sawyer PO Box 318 Newcastle ? Lavender Rd #4-17 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Lavender Rd #4-18 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Lavender Rd #4-19 ? Lavender Rd #4-20 ? Lavender Rd #4.21 ? Lavender Rd #4-22 Margaret M. Fish 68 Spring Hill Rd 68 Spring Hill Rd #4-23 #4-24 Sylvia Tabbutt 55 Pitt Lane Newcastle 48 Spring Hill Rd #4-25 Lucille Larose Wentworth ? Spring Hill Rd #4-26 Thomas & Mary Lambert Newcastle Rd ? Wentworth Rd #4-27 Wentworth BTS small island vacantlot #5_1 Margaret Harford 92 Wild Rose 92 Wild Rose #5_2 Stuart & Donna Levenson 10 Meadow Ln N Hampton 56 Wild Rose #5-3A Ahdrah Moore 350 Wentworth 350 Wentworth #5-313 John & Meryl Walsh 300 Wentwortth 300 Wentworth #5-4 Charles & Barbara Brown 111 320 Wentworth 320 Wentworth #5-5 Thomas & Patricia Roy 314 Wentworth 314 Wentworth #5-6 Louise Kenneth & Erik Aspen 266 Wentworth 258 Wentworth #5-7 Louise Kenneth & Erik Aspen 266 Wentworth 266 Wentworth #5-8 Secret Pond Realty 254 Wentworth 254 Wentworth #5_9 Louise Kenneth & Erik Aspen 266 Wentworth 252 Wentwworth #5-10 Michael & Barbara Kuchtey 250 Wentworth 250 Wentworth #5-11 Thomas & Theresa Golter 238 Wentworth 230 Wentworth #5-12 Christopher&Stephani Mullin Webster Grove MO 244 Wentworth #5-13 Town of Newcastle Newcastle Commons #5-14 Carolyn Baker 9 Wild Rose 9 Wild Rose ocean side #5-15 George W. McLaughlin 91 Wild Rose 91 Wild Rose ocean side #5-16 Gertrude McCarthy 75 Wild Rose 75 Wild Rose ocean side B6 Appendix C: Bacterial Indicator Concentrations in Water at Sites Around Little Harbor. Nficrobiological analysis of water samples included tests for fecal coliforms, Escherichia coli , enterococci, and Clostridiwn perfringens. Fecal coliforms, E. coli, enterococci and C. perfringens were measured using standard membrane filtration methods. Water samples for fecal coliforms and E. coli analyses were filtered on 0.45 @grri membrane filters and incubated on mTEC agar media for 24 h at 44.5-+0.2'C. Yellow colonies were counted as fecal coliforms, and those that remained yellow after incubation on urea- soaked pads were considered E. coli. Enterococci colonies were measured by incubating 0.45 gm membrane filters on mE medium at 41'C for 48 hours. At that time, the reddish-brown colonies that caused a black precipitate to form when filters were transferred to EIA agar were counted as enterococci. C. perfringens colonies were enumerated by filtering water through 0.7 gm filters and incubating the filters on mCP agar 24 h at 44.5+-0.20C in an anaerobic chamber under hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Large, flat, creamy, brownish colonies were counted as C. perfringens colonies, and were confirmed by looking for a pink-mauve color upon exposure to ammonium hydroxide fumes. Fecal coliforms are the standard indicator for shellfish- growing waters in New Hampshire based on recommendations by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, E. coli is the recreational standard for freshwater in New Hampshire and is the actual target organism of fecal coliform tests. Enterococci is the standard indicator for the estuarine recreational waters of New Hampshire, and C. per firingens is a spore-forming bacterial species that is an indicator of long-term fecal contamination and is being used with increasing frequency in related studies. The data for fecal coliforms are presented in the main text of this report. Data for the other three bacterial indicators are presented in Tables C 1 -C3. The geometric means of the data for all four indicators and all sites are shown in Figures Cl and C2. Enterococci, fecal coliforms and E. coli exhibited similar spatial responses,, with the highest levels found upstream in Witch Creek, relatively high levels in Berry Brook, lower levels at Seavey and Sagamore Creeks, the Little Harbor bridge and the marina, and the lowest levels at the mouth of the harbor. C. perfringens concentrations were relatively low, and were highest at Sheafe's Point, which had the next to lowest levels for the other indicators. ne paired data for all four indicators were compared to detern-jine if different fecal indicators gave consistent indications of contamination. Ile results are summarized as correlation coefficients, as follows: FC Ec Ent Fecal coliforms (FC) - 1.000 0.974** 0.890** 0.071ns E. coli (Ec) 1.000 0.952** 0.'278* Enterococci (Ent) 1.000 0.277* C. per firingens (Cp) 1.000 significance probability: <0.05 significance probability: <0.01 ns: not significant (P>0.05) The statistical analysis suggests that there are strong relationships between fecal coliform, enterococci and E. coli data. The relationship be C. perfringens data and both E. coli and enterococci data are much weaker, and there is no apparent relationship between C. per inge fir ns and fecal coliforin data. Thus, all three indicators used by the State of New Hampshire gave similar indications of fecal contamination, both from geometric mean trends and from direct relationships between data. Table C1. Concentrations (per 100 ml) of E. coli in water samples from Little Harbor, 1995-96. E. coli Date TI T6 T7 T8 T13 T14 LH2 WCI WC2 WC5 WC6 PCI PC2 PC4 PC5 SCI SC2 WRSI_ 7/20/95 1 2 15 35 0.5 46.5 5 8/3/95 6 45.5 20 230 20.8 97.5 38 8/7/95 126 10 8/22/95 3 1.5 3.75 9/15/95 1 1 1 2 1.5 3.5 17 1 9/21/95 0.9 1 0.9 0.9 5 2 1 6 10/5/95 0.9 0.9 130 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 11/15/95 60 120 920 380 780 236 3250 2/27/96 0.5 5.5 4 11 1 1 3.5 130 5/9/96 9 11 20 20 5/28/96 0.5 2.5 1 3 5/30/96 3 6 250 5 12.5 2.5 52 6/10/96 0.4 4 122 3.5 18 3 34 2 1.8 4 2 2 6/18/96 9.5 19 52 5.5 12.5 23 10 3 0.9 2 4 2 2 6 6/25/96 0.5 1 24 2 5 1.5 12 Geornevic mean 1.9 4.9 18.2 9.6 6.7 6.2 7.3 18.6 2.0 1.8 4.0 2.4 1.3 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 SLandard deviatioi 4.6 4.6 11.4 5.9 6.5 7.0 6.0 10.1 Table C2. Concentrations (per 100 ml) of enterococci in water samples from Little Harbor, 1995-96. Enterococci Date T I T6 T7 T8 T13 T14 LH2 WCI WC2 WC5 WC6 PCI PC2 PC4 PC5 SCI SC2 WRSI 7/20/95 0.25 2 2 3 3 3 5 8/3/95 3 16.25 5.5 4 8.75 5.25 54.25 8/7/95 8/22/95 2.75 3 0.25 9/15/95 0.5 2 1.5 6 2 6.5 9.5 12 9/21/95 2 1.5 0.5 28 11.5 1 5.5 . 9 10/5/95 0.9 25.5 26 5.5 22.5 6.5 70.5 11/15/95 60 231 1140 530 720 373 2000 2/27/96 4 5 10 6.5 2 5 8 24 5/9/96 0.5 2.5 11.5 4.5 5/28/96 1 0.4 1.5 1 5/30/96 0.4 0.5 7.5 1 3 1.5 12 6/10/96 1 0.5 6.5 3 5 0.5 1.5 3.5 133 1 19.5 3.5 6/18/96 6 0.5 2 4 2 2 6 6/25/96 Geometric mean 1.4 2.3 8.9 8-.2 5.0 7.2 3.9 23.0 3.5 133.0 1.0 10.8 1.3 2.0 4.0 2.0 2.0 6.0 Standard dcviatioi 4.6 7.9 9.1 2.8 5.2 5.5 6.9 7.4 Table C3. Concentrations (per 100 ml) of C. perfringens in water samples from Little Harbor, 1995-96. C. perftingens Date T I T6 T7 T8 T13 T14 LH2 WCI WC2 WC5 WC6 PCI PC2 PC4 PC5 SCI SC2 WRSI- 7/20/95 0.5 2 3 6.5 2.75 2.75 15 8/3/95 2.75 0.75 5 1.75 6.5 2.5 4 8/7/95 8/22/95 4.5 2.5 1.5 9/15/95 9/21/95 2 9 0.5 1.5 23.5 2 1 3.5 10/5/95 2 2.5 7.5 2.5 10 1 11 11/15/95 5 3.5 17.5 22.5 15 17.5 47.5 2/27/96 4.5 5 6 6.5 1.5 6 8 2 5/9/96 5 12 6 6 5/28/96 26 46 7.5 2.5 5/30/96 8 128 4 21 12.5 2.5 31.5 6/10/96 4 1.9 0.9 12 4 0.5 8 16 2 16 4 1.9 6/18/96 0.9 18 1.5 14.5 5 3.5 2.5 0.4 2.5 15 9.5 1 0.5 5 6/25/96 4 10 2 4.5 9.5 7.5 9 Gcornevic mean 3.3 11.6 2.2 4.1 6.9 5.7 2.6 8.1 16.0 2.0 16.0 1.3 2.2 3.5 9.5 1.0 0.5 5.0 SLandard deviatioi 2.8 3.6 2.9 1.9 2.6 1.9 2.7 2.9 Figure C1. Geometric mean fecal coliforms and E. coli at sites in and around Little Harbor, 1995-96. 35 30 Fecal coliforms E. coli 25 20 15 10 5 0 Berry Bk Seavey Witch Cr Sheafe's Sagarnore LH Marina Mouth of L Cr Pt Cr bridge LH Figure C2. Geometric mean enterococci and C. perfringens at sites in and around Little Harbor, 1995-96. 25 20 Enterococci C. perfringens 15 E lu 5 N 0 Berry Bk Seavey Witch Cr Sheafe's Sagarnore LH Marina Mouth of Cr Pt Cr bridge LH NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14112711 0